Rumors also claim that the Chinese factories which create the finished display covers were getting only about 20% yield out of the sapphire shipped to them by GTAT. Is 20% yield considered normal in this industry? With all the talk about Apple having such high standards, has anyone questioned whether those Chinese factories could do something to improve their yield?
I don't really buy into the argument that it was the polishing issues were behind Apple's not making the final payment. The article states that the sapphire "bricks" (boules) were only available in volume beginning in August, so Apple should have and would have been working on the polishing process starting much earlier with sapphire from other sources, or some of the earliest GTAT production. I would have expected Apple to have already committed to Gorilla Glass for the iPhone 6 earlier in the summer if even there was a hint of problems in boule production or polishing.
GTAT was missing milestones as early as February of 2014, and this would have had more of an impact on Apple's turn to Gorilla Glass than polishing issues with sapphire 6 weeks before iPhones began shipping.
Of course, I expect the facts to be discovered at some point by the Court.
This is why companies tend to manufacture outside of the U.S. Wheb you try to bring jobs here the risk of being screwed over and the judges going along with it is super high.
Actually doing business overseas is far worse, most overseas companies sign these kinds of deals knowing full well they have no plans to honor them. If something goes bad they just bankrupt the company and start up a new one under a new name. It is done all the time, if they are a large company they set up shell holding company in so country with no assets, the holding company signs the agreement and if something goes bad then you stuck dealing with a no assets holding company.
Actually the judge is sending both sides a message with his overly simplify view of what happen. When you know the issue is more complicated and the person who is going to make the final determination is overly simplifying it, then it say you better work something out otherwise, you both may not like the outcome if the judge has to decide.
I don't really buy into the argument that it was the polishing issues were behind Apple's not making the final payment. The article states that the sapphire "bricks" (boules) were only available in volume beginning in August, so Apple should have and would have been working on the polishing process starting much earlier with sapphire from other sources, or some of the earliest GTAT production. I would have expected Apple to have already committed to Gorilla Glass for the iPhone 6 earlier in the summer if even there was a hint of problems in boule production or polishing.
GTAT was missing milestones as early as February of 2014, and this would have had more of an impact on Apple's turn to Gorilla Glass than polishing issues with sapphire 6 weeks before iPhones began shipping.
Of course, I expect the facts to be discovered at some point by the Court.
Absolutely do not believe anything thatMatt Margolissays, the guy has not clue, he was the biggest GTAT cheerleader out there and he not talk about how much he made hyping the stock. There was no apple was using this for phones, the whole yield thing was red-herring Matt was using to divert attention away from the fact he had no idea what is talking about. The guy has no technology background so lack and skill to determine if it was even technically feasible to use sapphire on a phone display. Even if Apple was considering they would have ruled it out more than 6 months ago, they did not make a decision in August to dump sapphire and more to GG3. If that in fact happen the Launch of the phone would have been delayed 6 months, you all saw all the testing Apple does and those test take time.
The deal with GTAT was for the watch and as it has been stated in court, other secret projects and those are not phone displays.
True, not to mention it isn't like these judges at this level are brand new judges, which tend to be lawyers first, so you figure they are in their 40's at a minimum, and likely 50s and 60s. So they grew up in a world that wasn't so technology dependent. A TV was a TV. That was it. Etc. (also, not saying 40s is old, or out of touch, just that you are likely in your 40s before you become a judge, then have to move up to this level)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay
The Judge said "I can't believe that it all must be sealed" implying that there needs to be a filter on what is sealed/limited and what is public. I don't think that is onerous, and neither would Apple as long as trade secrets remain sealed from the public.
The contractor anecdote certainly doesn't apply.
Ask for everything so when you come back with less it is easier to get? To say, "look at all we trimmed"
Actually doing business overseas is far worse, most overseas companies sign these kinds of deals knowing full well they have no plans to honor them. If something goes bad they just bankrupt the company and start up a new one under a new name. It is done all the time, if they are a large company they set up shell holding company in so country with no assets, the holding company signs the agreement and if something goes bad then you stuck dealing with a no assets holding company.
The difference is those companies actually have a track record. The other companies they already get Saphire from are overseas. They have been no reports of a similar situation with these companies. Apple was attempting to have it manufactured here. Look how that turned out.
Comments
I completely agree with you (Haggar)
Business Financing
Probably many are old school PC users and hate Apple ... /paranoia
Rumors also claim that the Chinese factories which create the finished display covers were getting only about 20% yield out of the sapphire shipped to them by GTAT. Is 20% yield considered normal in this industry? With all the talk about Apple having such high standards, has anyone questioned whether those Chinese factories could do something to improve their yield?
Here's the link
http://wallstreetforensics.com/sapphire-screens-miss-apple-iphone-6-launch-weeks/
I don't really buy into the argument that it was the polishing issues were behind Apple's not making the final payment. The article states that the sapphire "bricks" (boules) were only available in volume beginning in August, so Apple should have and would have been working on the polishing process starting much earlier with sapphire from other sources, or some of the earliest GTAT production. I would have expected Apple to have already committed to Gorilla Glass for the iPhone 6 earlier in the summer if even there was a hint of problems in boule production or polishing.
GTAT was missing milestones as early as February of 2014, and this would have had more of an impact on Apple's turn to Gorilla Glass than polishing issues with sapphire 6 weeks before iPhones began shipping.
Of course, I expect the facts to be discovered at some point by the Court.
This is why companies tend to manufacture outside of the U.S. Wheb you try to bring jobs here the risk of being screwed over and the judges going along with it is super high.
Actually doing business overseas is far worse, most overseas companies sign these kinds of deals knowing full well they have no plans to honor them. If something goes bad they just bankrupt the company and start up a new one under a new name. It is done all the time, if they are a large company they set up shell holding company in so country with no assets, the holding company signs the agreement and if something goes bad then you stuck dealing with a no assets holding company.
The judge sounds like a dunderhead.
Actually the judge is sending both sides a message with his overly simplify view of what happen. When you know the issue is more complicated and the person who is going to make the final determination is overly simplifying it, then it say you better work something out otherwise, you both may not like the outcome if the judge has to decide.
Here's the link
http://wallstreetforensics.com/sapphire-screens-miss-apple-iphone-6-launch-weeks/
I don't really buy into the argument that it was the polishing issues were behind Apple's not making the final payment. The article states that the sapphire "bricks" (boules) were only available in volume beginning in August, so Apple should have and would have been working on the polishing process starting much earlier with sapphire from other sources, or some of the earliest GTAT production. I would have expected Apple to have already committed to Gorilla Glass for the iPhone 6 earlier in the summer if even there was a hint of problems in boule production or polishing.
GTAT was missing milestones as early as February of 2014, and this would have had more of an impact on Apple's turn to Gorilla Glass than polishing issues with sapphire 6 weeks before iPhones began shipping.
Of course, I expect the facts to be discovered at some point by the Court.
Absolutely do not believe anything that Matt Margolis says, the guy has not clue, he was the biggest GTAT cheerleader out there and he not talk about how much he made hyping the stock. There was no apple was using this for phones, the whole yield thing was red-herring Matt was using to divert attention away from the fact he had no idea what is talking about. The guy has no technology background so lack and skill to determine if it was even technically feasible to use sapphire on a phone display. Even if Apple was considering they would have ruled it out more than 6 months ago, they did not make a decision in August to dump sapphire and more to GG3. If that in fact happen the Launch of the phone would have been delayed 6 months, you all saw all the testing Apple does and those test take time.
The deal with GTAT was for the watch and as it has been stated in court, other secret projects and those are not phone displays.
They are trained in law not technology.
True, not to mention it isn't like these judges at this level are brand new judges, which tend to be lawyers first, so you figure they are in their 40's at a minimum, and likely 50s and 60s. So they grew up in a world that wasn't so technology dependent. A TV was a TV. That was it. Etc. (also, not saying 40s is old, or out of touch, just that you are likely in your 40s before you become a judge, then have to move up to this level)
The Judge said "I can't believe that it all must be sealed" implying that there needs to be a filter on what is sealed/limited and what is public. I don't think that is onerous, and neither would Apple as long as trade secrets remain sealed from the public.
The contractor anecdote certainly doesn't apply.
Ask for everything so when you come back with less it is easier to get? To say, "look at all we trimmed"
Bog off, Boroff.
Why do all judges connected to these cases seem terribly clueless?
They are trained in law not technology.
That's like saying that musicians are trained in music, not sound.