Lemme see, you convince me to spend money on R&D an start production on a product that has no other uses except for a new revolutionary device that no one else is making. I continually improve the product and while others have begun to use it you are still by far by biggest customer, and now after a few years you've decided to use another product taking away the business you initiated.
I take it you, and I define 'screwing over' very differently.
What [@]hill60[/@] said but I'd like to add that Corning as made a lot of money with little effort and will continue to make money off GG. Remember that Corning was able to get the plant up and running in just a few months. On top of that, it's been over 7 years since Apple first purchased GG from Corning and they will continue to purchase GG from Corning for years to come. Using it for Touch ID sensor or iWatch aren't likely going to affect their use of GG in other areas, like the iPad and MBP display covers… but even if it eventually does we're still talking many years of selling a product that wouldn't have existed if not for Apple.
What [@]hill60[/@] said but I'd like to add that Corning as made a lot of money with little effort and will continue to make money off GG. Remember that Corning was able to get the plant up and running in just a few months. On top of that, it's been over 7 years since Apple first purchased GG from Corning and they will continue to purchase GG from Corning for years to come. Using it for Touch ID sensor or iWatch aren't likely going to affect their use of GG in other areas, like the iPad and MBP display covers… but even if it eventually does we're still talking many years of selling a product that wouldn't have existed if not for Apple.
Like I told hill60, Samsung doesn’t use GG. You also have no idea what effort it took them to start producing it. Making the glass for the iPhone was in all likelihood a huge part of their business. iPads and MBPs don't sell in the same numbers so it's hardly a economical consolation. It's going to be a big hit no matter how you paint it.
Like I told hill60, Samsung doesn’t use GG. You also have no idea what effort it took them to start producing it. Making the glass for the iPhone was in all likelihood a huge part of their business. iPads and MBPs don't sell in the same numbers so it's hardly a economical consolation. It's going to be a big hit no matter how you paint it.
1) We know it took them less than 6 months.
2) Samsung not using it has no barring on anything. It's been a successful product for Corning.
3) The iPad doesn't sell as many units as the iPhones but since we know the numbers for each we know the footprint of each we know the iPad uses more GG than the iPhone. This is even without considering any Macs.
4) Using a different supplier for a new component or switching out a supplier after a very long history of making them money is not in any way screwing them over. Unless you can find some evidence to support that Apple has been lying to Corning and essentially forcing them to spend billions in R&D for a product Apple has no intention of ever using there is no unscrupulous shadiness involved.
2) Samsung not using it has no barring on anything. It's been a successful product for Corning.
3) The iPad doesn't sell as many units as the iPhones but since we know the numbers for each we know the footprint of each we know the iPad uses more GG than the iPhone. This is even without considering any Macs.
4) Using a different supplier for a new component or switching out a supplier after a very long history of making them money is not in any way screwing them over. Unless you can find some evidence to support that Apple has been lying to Corning and essentially forcing them to spend billions in R&D for a product Apple has no intention of ever using there is no unscrupulous shadiness involved.
1)The length of time is no indicator for effort.
2)hill60 assumed that GG is used in every smartphone and that's just not the case.
3) Footprint isn't indicative of cost. Just because a iPad uses 5-6 times more glass doesn’t mean it costs that much more.
4) Switching suppliers is common business practice. The end result for the supplier is still the same regardless of how it was done.
This whole conversation started by someone posting that Google could've been allies with Apple, and I pointed out that partnerships don't always last forever. It would've been foolish of Google to count on Apple for a great part of its mobile business because they could very easily get replaced.
From what I understand Samsung doesn’t use them, and the other vendors sell in laughable numbers. So no, nobody is going to fill the void left by Apple.
You were already completely incorrect about Samsung's usage of the material.
That list covers pretty much every mid to high end device from major manufacturers (there are others who choose not to have their usage listed, such as Apple). Gorilla glass has become somewhat de facto standard for what a decent device should include. Individually the listed devices may not sell in iPhone numbers, but in aggregate, it looks like Corning will not be crying poverty anytime soon.
Would they notice if Apple were to drop them entirely all at once? Almost certainly. Are you suggesting that without Apple's business, they would not be able to sustain production and development of gorilla glass in a profitable manner?
You were already completely incorrect about Samsung's usage of the material.
That list covers pretty much every mid to high end device from major manufacturers (there are others who choose not to have their usage listed, such as Apple). Gorilla glass has become somewhat de facto standard for what a decent device should include. Individually the listed devices may not sell in iPhone numbers, but in aggregate, it looks like Corning will not be crying poverty anytime soon.
Would they notice if Apple were to drop them entirely all at once? Almost certainly. Are you suggesting that without Apple's business, they would not be able to sustain production and development of gorilla glass in a profitable manner?
My initial statement was that my understanding is that Samsung doesn't use then. That's still a small list compared to their entire product lineup.
While that list looks impressive those products sell in insignificant numbers. I never said the company was going to fold. They'll still be profitable just not as much. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that they're going to take a significant earnings hit.
My initial statement was that my understanding is that Samsung doesn't use then. That's still a small list compared to their entire product lineup.
While that list looks impressive those products sell in insignificant numbers. I never said the company was going to fold. They'll still be profitable just not as much. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that they're going to take a significant earnings hit.
You were confident enough in your understanding that you used it in your posts with hill60 and SolipsismX.
Of course that's a small list given Samsung produces an enormous amount of low end devices where there is no expectation or need to incorporate gorilla glass to sell the device. I would venture to guess that what *is* listed for all other manufacturers (*excluding Apple) is that the number of devices are greater than what Apple produces.
I already noted that corning would notice if they were to lose Apple's business. That's unlikely to happen at least in the immediate future.. It's quite likely, however, that as Apple strives to differentiate their offerings from the rest of the market, that they move to higher end (and consequently, higher cost) materials.
Regardless what happens, Corning has benefited enormously from gorilla glass and until something better (or cheaper at the same level of quality) comes along they're the standard for what every decent phone should include. I would hardly refer to the position they are in as screwed if Apple should move on with their future devices.
You were confident enough in your understanding that you used it in your posts with hill60 and SolipsismX.
Of course that's a small list given Samsung produces an enormous amount of low end devices where there is no expectation or need to incorporate gorilla glass to sell the device. I would venture to guess that what *is* listed for all other manufacturers (*excluding Apple) is that the number of devices are greater than what Apple produces.
I already noted that corning would notice if they were to lose Apple's business. That's unlikely to happen at least in the immediate future.. It's quite likely, however, that as Apple strives to differentiate their offerings from the rest of the market, that they move to higher end (and consequently, higher cost) materials.
Regardless what happens, Corning has benefited enormously from gorilla glass and until something better (or cheaper at the same level of quality) comes along they're the standard for what every decent phone should include. I would hardly refer to the position they are in as screwed if Apple should move on with their future devices.
Again my whole point was to contradict a poster that suggested a Apple and Google partnership would automatically be a long lived one. Google didn't have the luxury of assuming that Apple would stick with them. I don't like how they went about creating a competing OS but I do understand why they did it. We can argue back and forth whether Corning got screwed or not but that doesn't change the fact that they're about to lose a lot of business. No matter the motive there's no softening a blow like that.
Again my whole point was to contradict a poster that suggested a Apple and Google partnership would automatically be a long lived one. Google didn't have the luxury of assuming that Apple would stick with them. I don't like how they went about creating a competing OS but I do understand why they did it. We can argue back and forth whether Corning got screwed or not but that doesn't change the fact that they're about to lose a lot of business. No matter the motive there's no softening a blow like that.
1) I don't understand why an Apple and Google partnership has to do with Corning being screwed or not.
2) Screwed in this context implies to cheat, trick, deceive, swindle, con, scam, dupe, fool, rip off, or bamboozle, none of which I can see working here even if Apple does drop all use of Corning from it's entire product line this year, which I think is highly improbable.
1) I don't understand why an Apple and Google partnership has to do with Corning being screwed or not.
2) Screwed in this context implies to cheat, trick, deceive, swindle, con, scam, dupe, fool, rip off, or bamboozle, none of which I can see working here even if Apple does drop all use of Corning from it's entire product line this year, which I think is highly improbable.
Was just pointing out that partnerships with Apple doesn't mean they're going to stick with you for long. Can you without a doubt say that Apple would've never made iAd or its own map app if Google had not made Android?
Neither one of us knows how this has all played out with Apple and Corning, nor do we know if Apple gave them any assurances, but I'm pretty sure the people at Corning aren't too happy.
Was just pointing out that partnerships with Apple doesn't mean they're going to stick with you for long. Can you without a doubt say that Apple would've never made iAd or its own map app if Google had not made Android?
Neither one of us knows how this has all played out with Apple and Corning, nor do we know if Apple gave them any assurances, but I'm pretty sure the people at Corning aren't too happy.
1) That's a very different statement from "screwed over"
2) I'm sure Corning wishes they were being used for Touch ID and I guess once could interpret that to mean they are unhappy with that, but that's in the same sense that Apple is unhappy with every device they've ever made if they make changes to it a year later. If corning isn't happy that GG for Touch ID isn't good enough they need to make a better product. That's business.
From what I understand Samsung doesn’t use them, and the other vendors sell in laughable numbers. So no, nobody is going to fill the void left by Apple.
Matter of fact it was one of the things Samsung fanboys used to crow about before Apple made public they were using Corning without advertising their brand name.
Was just pointing out that partnerships with Apple doesn't mean they're going to stick with you for long. Can you without a doubt say that Apple would've never made iAd or its own map app if Google had not made Android?
Neither one of us knows how this has all played out with Apple and Corning, nor do we know if Apple gave them any assurances, but I'm pretty sure the people at Corning aren't too happy.
Would that be like the old partnership Apple had with Motorola to make chips?
Motorola suing Apple over the iPhone was a stab in the back which Google took over to add a twist to the knife.
Would that be like the old partnership Apple had with Motorola to make chips?
Motorola suing Apple over the iPhone was a stab in the back which Google took over to add a twist to the knife.
I don't know the specifics of the Apple/Moto deal so I couldn't comment. It's all business and happens quite often. Again none of us knows what would've happened with a Apple/Google partnership. Google elected to choose its destiny rather then let Apple decide it.
Would that be like the old partnership Apple had with Motorola to make chips?
Wasn't Apple the one choosing to transition away from Motorola (IBM) chipsets over to Intel several years ago? Maybe you're referring to something else?
Comments
Thanks Phil. Very good of u to say.
Best regards.
Chris
What [@]hill60[/@] said but I'd like to add that Corning as made a lot of money with little effort and will continue to make money off GG. Remember that Corning was able to get the plant up and running in just a few months. On top of that, it's been over 7 years since Apple first purchased GG from Corning and they will continue to purchase GG from Corning for years to come. Using it for Touch ID sensor or iWatch aren't likely going to affect their use of GG in other areas, like the iPad and MBP display covers… but even if it eventually does we're still talking many years of selling a product that wouldn't have existed if not for Apple.
Like I told hill60, Samsung doesn’t use GG. You also have no idea what effort it took them to start producing it. Making the glass for the iPhone was in all likelihood a huge part of their business. iPads and MBPs don't sell in the same numbers so it's hardly a economical consolation. It's going to be a big hit no matter how you paint it.
1) We know it took them less than 6 months.
2) Samsung not using it has no barring on anything. It's been a successful product for Corning.
3) The iPad doesn't sell as many units as the iPhones but since we know the numbers for each we know the footprint of each we know the iPad uses more GG than the iPhone. This is even without considering any Macs.
4) Using a different supplier for a new component or switching out a supplier after a very long history of making them money is not in any way screwing them over. Unless you can find some evidence to support that Apple has been lying to Corning and essentially forcing them to spend billions in R&D for a product Apple has no intention of ever using there is no unscrupulous shadiness involved.
1)The length of time is no indicator for effort.
2)hill60 assumed that GG is used in every smartphone and that's just not the case.
3) Footprint isn't indicative of cost. Just because a iPad uses 5-6 times more glass doesn’t mean it costs that much more.
4) Switching suppliers is common business practice. The end result for the supplier is still the same regardless of how it was done.
This whole conversation started by someone posting that Google could've been allies with Apple, and I pointed out that partnerships don't always last forever. It would've been foolish of Google to count on Apple for a great part of its mobile business because they could very easily get replaced.
From what I understand Samsung doesn’t use them, and the other vendors sell in laughable numbers. So no, nobody is going to fill the void left by Apple.
http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/products-with-gorilla/full-products-list
Corning's site seems to be at odds with what you're claiming.
How many of those devices sell in iPhone like numbers? None
You were already completely incorrect about Samsung's usage of the material.
That list covers pretty much every mid to high end device from major manufacturers (there are others who choose not to have their usage listed, such as Apple). Gorilla glass has become somewhat de facto standard for what a decent device should include. Individually the listed devices may not sell in iPhone numbers, but in aggregate, it looks like Corning will not be crying poverty anytime soon.
Would they notice if Apple were to drop them entirely all at once? Almost certainly. Are you suggesting that without Apple's business, they would not be able to sustain production and development of gorilla glass in a profitable manner?
My initial statement was that my understanding is that Samsung doesn't use then. That's still a small list compared to their entire product lineup.
While that list looks impressive those products sell in insignificant numbers. I never said the company was going to fold. They'll still be profitable just not as much. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that they're going to take a significant earnings hit.
My initial statement was that my understanding is that Samsung doesn't use then. That's still a small list compared to their entire product lineup.
While that list looks impressive those products sell in insignificant numbers. I never said the company was going to fold. They'll still be profitable just not as much. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that they're going to take a significant earnings hit.
You were confident enough in your understanding that you used it in your posts with hill60 and SolipsismX.
Of course that's a small list given Samsung produces an enormous amount of low end devices where there is no expectation or need to incorporate gorilla glass to sell the device. I would venture to guess that what *is* listed for all other manufacturers (*excluding Apple) is that the number of devices are greater than what Apple produces.
I already noted that corning would notice if they were to lose Apple's business. That's unlikely to happen at least in the immediate future.. It's quite likely, however, that as Apple strives to differentiate their offerings from the rest of the market, that they move to higher end (and consequently, higher cost) materials.
Regardless what happens, Corning has benefited enormously from gorilla glass and until something better (or cheaper at the same level of quality) comes along they're the standard for what every decent phone should include. I would hardly refer to the position they are in as screwed if Apple should move on with their future devices.
Again my whole point was to contradict a poster that suggested a Apple and Google partnership would automatically be a long lived one. Google didn't have the luxury of assuming that Apple would stick with them. I don't like how they went about creating a competing OS but I do understand why they did it. We can argue back and forth whether Corning got screwed or not but that doesn't change the fact that they're about to lose a lot of business. No matter the motive there's no softening a blow like that.
1) I don't understand why an Apple and Google partnership has to do with Corning being screwed or not.
2) Screwed in this context implies to cheat, trick, deceive, swindle, con, scam, dupe, fool, rip off, or bamboozle, none of which I can see working here even if Apple does drop all use of Corning from it's entire product line this year, which I think is highly improbable.
Was just pointing out that partnerships with Apple doesn't mean they're going to stick with you for long. Can you without a doubt say that Apple would've never made iAd or its own map app if Google had not made Android?
Neither one of us knows how this has all played out with Apple and Corning, nor do we know if Apple gave them any assurances, but I'm pretty sure the people at Corning aren't too happy.
1) That's a very different statement from "screwed over"
2) I'm sure Corning wishes they were being used for Touch ID and I guess once could interpret that to mean they are unhappy with that, but that's in the same sense that Apple is unhappy with every device they've ever made if they make changes to it a year later. If corning isn't happy that GG for Touch ID isn't good enough they need to make a better product. That's business.
From what I understand Samsung doesn’t use them, and the other vendors sell in laughable numbers. So no, nobody is going to fill the void left by Apple.
Expand your understanding.
Matter of fact it was one of the things Samsung fanboys used to crow about before Apple made public they were using Corning without advertising their brand name.
There's a Sammy specific list here:
http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/products-with-gorilla/samsung
2)hill60 assumed that GG is used in every smartphone and that's just not the case.
I didn't assume or say that at all.
It's up to Corning to sell their product to the "80% of the market" Android handset vendors, they are still left with that opportunity.
Which can easily make up for the 20% that is iOS.
So again, Corning has not been screwed over.
Was just pointing out that partnerships with Apple doesn't mean they're going to stick with you for long. Can you without a doubt say that Apple would've never made iAd or its own map app if Google had not made Android?
Neither one of us knows how this has all played out with Apple and Corning, nor do we know if Apple gave them any assurances, but I'm pretty sure the people at Corning aren't too happy.
Would that be like the old partnership Apple had with Motorola to make chips?
Motorola suing Apple over the iPhone was a stab in the back which Google took over to add a twist to the knife.
I don't know the specifics of the Apple/Moto deal so I couldn't comment. It's all business and happens quite often. Again none of us knows what would've happened with a Apple/Google partnership. Google elected to choose its destiny rather then let Apple decide it.
Wasn't Apple the one choosing to transition away from Motorola (IBM) chipsets over to Intel several years ago? Maybe you're referring to something else?
EDIT: Yes it was Apple that chose to dump Motorola.
http://www.cnet.com/news/four-years-later-why-did-apple-drop-powerpc/