Of course he did. It's just the benighted people around here who still refuse to see the obvious.
Just like he did with his STUPID dividends decision, which automatically opened the precedent for Apple to turn a growth stock into a MS-like stock.
Just like his IDIOTIC decision to buy Beats, which has neither great headphones nor an "invaluable" streaming service.
But let them care about their stock prices and "doubled" company value; I prefer to care about true innovation and a promising way forward, just like I did when buying Apple devices back in the dark (yet hopeful) 90s...well, at least Jobs was alive in that era.
Doom! DOOOM!
geeze, you people. beats -- does a billion in sales w/ high-margin gear and has the mindshare of a young, hip market share. hmm sounds familiar...
Stop making excuses. Tim Cook messed up, big time.
You don't just give HALF A BILLION to a company and they end up bankrupt 12 months later. That is NOT business as usual.
Tim Cook messed up. He gave this BS company HALF A BILLION before they even provided Apple a good prototype product.
Your suggestions imply that Apple entered into a supplier contract completely at risk and without any sort of collateral or leverage. Does that sound like Tim Cook to you, a known supply chain guru? I think that your angle here shows more about what WE don't know than it does about what APPLE didn't know when they entered into the contract with GTAT.
According to GTAT's bankruptcy filing, they have $85 million in the bank currently. According to their previous quarterly filing in June, they had $333 million in the bank. Knowing that Apple often has performance based triggers in their contracts with suppliers, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had performance targets (e.g. yield percentage of X% by a specific date) such that if these weren't met, then GTAT would be legally obligated to pay the loan back early and Apple could pull the plug. It's possible that Apple made that huge bet ($500+ million) to get sapphire screens in their iPhones, just like had been speculated all year, but GTAT failed to meet the yield requirements in time. Perhaps that triggered a huge repayment. The sudden large drop in GTAT's bankroll (about $250 million) sure does fit that explanation better than anything else. And it would certainly trigger a surprise bankruptcy. In other words, maybe Apple got paid back early, and that CAUSED the bankruptcy, rather than the bankruptcy occurring and Apple getting nothing.
It also wouldn't surprise me if there was provision in the contract for Apple to take ownership of all of the equipment/property that GTAT had purchased with the loans. Perhaps these are now owned by Apple at the Arizona plant, and they can be used for the sapphire in the watches and (potentially) some new version of the iPhone coming in future years.
I know all of this is speculation, but it is an attempt at *informed* speculation (regarding GTAT's recent financials) which is more than can be said for your uninformed rants on here. You sound like a child trying to draw conclusions from only the information you read in the headlines. We basically know nothing about the status of GTAT's debt to Apple at this point, so we really can't draw any conclusions. My hunch, though, is that Tim Cook and Apple didn't enter into anything with GTAT without some sort of safety net. They just aren't as dumb as you.
geeze, you people. beats -- does a billion in sales w/ high-margin gear and has the mindshare of a young, hip market share. hmm sounds familiar...
Once more, you miss the basic point here:
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
I started seeing those cracks when the awful Beats deal was announced - not even for financial reasons (although its "advantages" are null, to say the least); but just because, for the first time in 15 years or so, Apple went after something else considered "cool", when Apple ITSELF has always been the epitome of cool and innovative.
And let's not even talk about quality of service issues or the ridiculous, unacceptably botched streaming of the last event...this alone should have raised concerns in sane Apple-loving people.
I love that. "Let's not even talk about..." and then talk about it anyway. Personally I'm now (in the spirit of brlawyer and sog35 who, because they have been buying Apple products for a long time are omniscient) 100% certain that the scammy scam artist running that scammy GTAT company is responsible for the poor streaming experience at the big incredibly successful latest Apple event. Tim Cook spent hundreds of millions of dollars (call it $2.5 billion when you factor in the overhead) to stream that event based solely on the technical advice of the scamster from GTAT.
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
They didn't buy Beats for its "alleged coolness." They bought Beats because it is a successful company with huge sales that has a loyal customer base. I don't necessarily agree that's it's a company worth $3 Billion, when HTC previously had a 50% stake for like $300 million, but I doubt they made the deal without some deep investigation of the company's financials and product line.
As was pointed out earlier, they also have never entered into a business arrangement, such as with GTAT, without performance based triggers in the contract. Apple is going to walk away from this GTAT bankruptcy just fine, having either caused it themselves by demanding repayment early and already getting their money, or by getting the plants to keep making their own sapphire equipment.
There is a huge difference between buying a lemon car and 'investing' $570M into a company.
When you've got $180,000,000,000 in the bank and making 40B+ in revenue a quarter- no, there isn't. That investment won't even show as a blip on a chart. And it's infinitely lower than investments other tech companies have made (ie. Google buying Motorola for $13B then selling for scrap) who have a lot less $$ to begin with. You're holding Apple to a ridiculous standard, to which you would hold no other company on earth, then using that to proclaim that Apple is badly managed. What a crock of garbage.
And please, sell your Apple stock, if that will spare us more of your trolling horse-shit. You clearly despise everything about Apple today, and why the **** do you still hold an investment in it? Sell and move on, and stop torturing this board with your incessant, pathetic, never-ending whining and bitching. You sound like a spoiled, entitled brat, to be honest, with your shitty "lists" you put out about why Apple is so horrible. For example:
"I'm seeing real cracks in Apple for the first time in a long time:
not having enought iPhone 6+ ready for launch
Blah designed of iPhone6"
When the **** did Apple ever have "enough stock" for an iPhone launch? When was this mythical iPhone launch that I missed? Is that your benchmark for "cracks", having demand outstrip supply, and having sold 10+million in a weekend? Thats your measuring stick? And if Apple has "failed" on this front, by having a CEO that is known as the best supply chain manager in the world, who in your opinion would have done a better job? On planet earth, not on planet X where an infinite amount of phones can be manufactured at launch- using magic.
"Blah designed"? You define that as a "crack" because its a subjective opinion that YOU have, that almost no one else shares?
You could make a much more significant list of "cracks" under SJ. You either have ZERO perspective or knowledge of Apple's history, or you're a blatant, shameless, bald-faced liar. Or probably both. One has to wonder what kind of vendetta you must have against Apple, so that your brain fucntions the way it does, and define record breaking launch #s, and insane demand for a new product as "cracks that I haven't seen in a long time". Utterly fascinating.
I was buying Apple computers when everyone and their dog proclaimed the company dead...so careful about your hubris above; pride comes before the fall after all.
being old doesn't make your opinions any more valid.
The fact is Tim Cook got scammed by Tom Guieterez (CEO of GTAT) for $570M
see, thats like, your opinion, man.
seriously -- you have no idea what apple got or didn't get. the only person saying they got scammed is you. and you don't work for apple corporate, so i can safely concur that you don't know anything more than i do. which is to say -- jack shit.
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
So because Apple hasn't done something in the past that means they should never do it in the future? Why would you buy a company where it's brand is EVERYTHING and then kill off that brand? Way to make the acquisition worthless. I was not a fan of the Beats acquisition but had Apple killed off the Beats brand it really would have been throwing $3B down the toilet.
Basically someone is throwing a temper tantrum because they made an investment based on Apple supply chain rumors and got burned.
Certainly without any accurate concept of what GTAT actually is in the business of manufacturing (i.e. a LOT more than "Sapphire", to which they're actually latecomers, they bought that ion beam tech).
And tossing money at a "name" absent even the simplest idea of what they actually produce is, well, unwise....
Most people here have no idea what "opportunity cost" means; so good luck trying to convince them.
Me please, me please!!!!!! It's like the foregone time I could have gainfully spent picking my nose with my eyes closed instead of reading your posts...
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
or its the sign of a company that is growing older, and making strategic investments. in my version of reality, this is a positive thing. you chose a negative one. they are both generally worthless opinions of randoms on a rumors site, and have little bearing to the real world businessmen making actually decisions and sinking or swimming by them (currently surfing, actually).
Comments
Of course he did. It's just the benighted people around here who still refuse to see the obvious.
Just like he did with his STUPID dividends decision, which automatically opened the precedent for Apple to turn a growth stock into a MS-like stock.
Just like his IDIOTIC decision to buy Beats, which has neither great headphones nor an "invaluable" streaming service.
But let them care about their stock prices and "doubled" company value; I prefer to care about true innovation and a promising way forward, just like I did when buying Apple devices back in the dark (yet hopeful) 90s...well, at least Jobs was alive in that era.
Doom! DOOOM!
geeze, you people. beats -- does a billion in sales w/ high-margin gear and has the mindshare of a young, hip market share. hmm sounds familiar...
Stop making excuses. Tim Cook messed up, big time.
You don't just give HALF A BILLION to a company and they end up bankrupt 12 months later. That is NOT business as usual.
Tim Cook messed up. He gave this BS company HALF A BILLION before they even provided Apple a good prototype product.
Your suggestions imply that Apple entered into a supplier contract completely at risk and without any sort of collateral or leverage. Does that sound like Tim Cook to you, a known supply chain guru? I think that your angle here shows more about what WE don't know than it does about what APPLE didn't know when they entered into the contract with GTAT.
According to GTAT's bankruptcy filing, they have $85 million in the bank currently. According to their previous quarterly filing in June, they had $333 million in the bank. Knowing that Apple often has performance based triggers in their contracts with suppliers, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had performance targets (e.g. yield percentage of X% by a specific date) such that if these weren't met, then GTAT would be legally obligated to pay the loan back early and Apple could pull the plug. It's possible that Apple made that huge bet ($500+ million) to get sapphire screens in their iPhones, just like had been speculated all year, but GTAT failed to meet the yield requirements in time. Perhaps that triggered a huge repayment. The sudden large drop in GTAT's bankroll (about $250 million) sure does fit that explanation better than anything else. And it would certainly trigger a surprise bankruptcy. In other words, maybe Apple got paid back early, and that CAUSED the bankruptcy, rather than the bankruptcy occurring and Apple getting nothing.
It also wouldn't surprise me if there was provision in the contract for Apple to take ownership of all of the equipment/property that GTAT had purchased with the loans. Perhaps these are now owned by Apple at the Arizona plant, and they can be used for the sapphire in the watches and (potentially) some new version of the iPhone coming in future years.
I know all of this is speculation, but it is an attempt at *informed* speculation (regarding GTAT's recent financials) which is more than can be said for your uninformed rants on here. You sound like a child trying to draw conclusions from only the information you read in the headlines. We basically know nothing about the status of GTAT's debt to Apple at this point, so we really can't draw any conclusions. My hunch, though, is that Tim Cook and Apple didn't enter into anything with GTAT without some sort of safety net. They just aren't as dumb as you.
I'm seeing real cracks in Apple for the first time in a long time:
failed GTAT deal
iOS8 update making iPhones useless
not having enought iPhone 6+ ready for launch
Blah designed of iPhone6
If we ever see $110 I'll probably sell all my shares.
your "cracks" are the most absurd list of shite I've ever read. gtfo. seriously, cuz you're grasping at straws.
when appl hits $110 ill be sure to see if you've sold all your sales.
If GTAT was able to scam Apple out of $500M what kind of confidence do I have in their future acquisitions or aliances?
who cares? why do any of us care what you think of apple's DOOMED status is? you'll just find new things to see as DOOM. cry somewhere else.
Doom! DOOOM!
geeze, you people. beats -- does a billion in sales w/ high-margin gear and has the mindshare of a young, hip market share. hmm sounds familiar...
Once more, you miss the basic point here:
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
its called opportunity cost.
The iPhone6 suppose to have sapphire screen. How many sales were lost because of that?
The AppleWatch suppose to come out this year. How many sales were lost because of that?
you're making things up to support you panicked arguments. you can't state rumors you read on a rumor site as being facts in the real world.
the reality is, you have no idea about anything. you're just another nameless guy reading stuff on a rumor site.
I started seeing those cracks when the awful Beats deal was announced - not even for financial reasons (although its "advantages" are null, to say the least); but just because, for the first time in 15 years or so, Apple went after something else considered "cool", when Apple ITSELF has always been the epitome of cool and innovative.
And let's not even talk about quality of service issues or the ridiculous, unacceptably botched streaming of the last event...this alone should have raised concerns in sane Apple-loving people.
I love that. "Let's not even talk about..." and then talk about it anyway. Personally I'm now (in the spirit of brlawyer and sog35 who, because they have been buying Apple products for a long time are omniscient) 100% certain that the scammy scam artist running that scammy GTAT company is responsible for the poor streaming experience at the big incredibly successful latest Apple event. Tim Cook spent hundreds of millions of dollars (call it $2.5 billion when you factor in the overhead) to stream that event based solely on the technical advice of the scamster from GTAT.
Once more, you miss the basic point here:
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
They didn't buy Beats for its "alleged coolness." They bought Beats because it is a successful company with huge sales that has a loyal customer base. I don't necessarily agree that's it's a company worth $3 Billion, when HTC previously had a 50% stake for like $300 million, but I doubt they made the deal without some deep investigation of the company's financials and product line.
As was pointed out earlier, they also have never entered into a business arrangement, such as with GTAT, without performance based triggers in the contract. Apple is going to walk away from this GTAT bankruptcy just fine, having either caused it themselves by demanding repayment early and already getting their money, or by getting the plants to keep making their own sapphire equipment.
There is a huge difference between buying a lemon car and 'investing' $570M into a company.
When you've got $180,000,000,000 in the bank and making 40B+ in revenue a quarter- no, there isn't. That investment won't even show as a blip on a chart. And it's infinitely lower than investments other tech companies have made (ie. Google buying Motorola for $13B then selling for scrap) who have a lot less $$ to begin with. You're holding Apple to a ridiculous standard, to which you would hold no other company on earth, then using that to proclaim that Apple is badly managed. What a crock of garbage.
And please, sell your Apple stock, if that will spare us more of your trolling horse-shit. You clearly despise everything about Apple today, and why the **** do you still hold an investment in it? Sell and move on, and stop torturing this board with your incessant, pathetic, never-ending whining and bitching. You sound like a spoiled, entitled brat, to be honest, with your shitty "lists" you put out about why Apple is so horrible. For example:
"I'm seeing real cracks in Apple for the first time in a long time:
not having enought iPhone 6+ ready for launch
Blah designed of iPhone6"
When the **** did Apple ever have "enough stock" for an iPhone launch? When was this mythical iPhone launch that I missed? Is that your benchmark for "cracks", having demand outstrip supply, and having sold 10+million in a weekend? Thats your measuring stick? And if Apple has "failed" on this front, by having a CEO that is known as the best supply chain manager in the world, who in your opinion would have done a better job? On planet earth, not on planet X where an infinite amount of phones can be manufactured at launch- using magic.
"Blah designed"? You define that as a "crack" because its a subjective opinion that YOU have, that almost no one else shares?
You could make a much more significant list of "cracks" under SJ. You either have ZERO perspective or knowledge of Apple's history, or you're a blatant, shameless, bald-faced liar. Or probably both. One has to wonder what kind of vendetta you must have against Apple, so that your brain fucntions the way it does, and define record breaking launch #s, and insane demand for a new product as "cracks that I haven't seen in a long time". Utterly fascinating.
I was buying Apple computers when everyone and their dog proclaimed the company dead...so careful about your hubris above; pride comes before the fall after all.
being old doesn't make your opinions any more valid.
... sog35 ... brlawyer .. as far as I know they aren't married to each other--or at all for that matter).
I am betting on 'or at all'...
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
The fact is Tim Cook got scammed by Tom Guieterez (CEO of GTAT) for $570M
see, thats like, your opinion, man.
seriously -- you have no idea what apple got or didn't get. the only person saying they got scammed is you. and you don't work for apple corporate, so i can safely concur that you don't know anything more than i do. which is to say -- jack shit.
I am betting on 'or at all'...
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
You are lucky your money is not on the table, then...
Most people here have no idea what "opportunity cost" means; so good luck trying to convince them.
but we do have an idea of what "blathering troll" means.
So because Apple hasn't done something in the past that means they should never do it in the future? Why would you buy a company where it's brand is EVERYTHING and then kill off that brand? Way to make the acquisition worthless. I was not a fan of the Beats acquisition but had Apple killed off the Beats brand it really would have been throwing $3B down the toilet.
being old doesn't make your opinions any more valid.
Hubris has no age.
Basically someone is throwing a temper tantrum because they made an investment based on Apple supply chain rumors and got burned.
Certainly without any accurate concept of what GTAT actually is in the business of manufacturing (i.e. a LOT more than "Sapphire", to which they're actually latecomers, they bought that ion beam tech).
And tossing money at a "name" absent even the simplest idea of what they actually produce is, well, unwise....
its called opportunity cost.
Most people here have no idea what "opportunity cost" means; so good luck trying to convince them.
Me please, me please!!!!!! It's like the foregone time I could have gainfully spent picking my nose with my eyes closed instead of reading your posts...
Once more, you miss the basic point here:
This is the first time in more than 15 years that Apple buys something FOR ITS ALLEGED COOLNESS, instead of integrating whatever purchase into Apple's own BRAND. This in itself is a sign of cracks to come.
or its the sign of a company that is growing older, and making strategic investments. in my version of reality, this is a positive thing. you chose a negative one. they are both generally worthless opinions of randoms on a rumors site, and have little bearing to the real world businessmen making actually decisions and sinking or swimming by them (currently surfing, actually).
so, no, sir, it is you who have missed the point.