After incorrect report on Apple's use of sapphire on iPhone 6, WSJ claims Apple changed plans last m

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    Less than two months ago, Daisuke Wakabayashi of the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was "betting $700 million" on a plan to use sapphire screens on its upcoming iPhones. After being proven wrong, the writer now claims that Apple radically reversed its plans just weeks before the new devices went on sale.

     

    In other words...Reporter who damaged his own credibility by pulling a story from his rectum destroys whats left of his credibility by digging further into said rectum for an excuse.
  • Reply 42 of 59
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GrangerFX View Post



    Judging by eBay, water is a much more serious threat to iPhones than cracked screens. It is easy to get a cracked screen replaced but once an iPhone gets wet, it is dead for good in most cases. I have my fingers crossed that the Apple Watch shows the future of Apple's mobile products: Completely sealed and water resistant.



    actually, no, that isn't true. there are many repair services that can restore a water damaged iPhone. speaking to one of these techs they say they have a high success rate. our anecdote backs it up -- we washed an iphone4 -- once i removed it from the machine i put it in rice for a few days. that didn't seem to work so i next removed its back glass panel and did it again...this time it worked and i could boot it. was still a little weird so i sent it to a repair service that put it thru a sonic cleaning procedure to remove/prevent corrosion. that worked, and it's still in use today.

  • Reply 43 of 59
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    All speculation, of course, but this is an excellent theory.

     

    should have left it at the first two words. 

  • Reply 44 of 59
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

     

    Wrong.  There is no Way Apple would have tried sapphire without a backup plan. The contract on the backup plan probably had a two month lead time and Apple pulled the trigger when GT couldn't meet quality requirements.  Seems pretty obvious what happened.




    yes, it's obvious thats what happened....in your mind.

     

    seriously -- no one knows, no one can know. we weren't there, we won't be there. it's equally as plausible that the sapphire was only intended for watch first, and they had a hard time producing for that goal. who knows. not me, not you.

  • Reply 45 of 59
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    The only thing believable is this sapphire was never meant for iPhone screens. It's meant for camera len covers, Touch ID and ?Watch.

    I disagree.  The amount of sapphire that those furnaces in AZ could deliver, if the process worked correctly, is waaaaay beyond what's needed for those things.  Couple that information with the facts that (1) Apple withheld its last prepayment to GTAT, and (2) apparently accelerated the loan repayment, and it is clear that Apple's volume & quality expectations for GTAT sapphire were not met.  And yes, I DO think that Apple was aware of this possible outcome long ago and had also contracted enough Gorilla Glass screens for the launch, as a plan "B".  Apple always has a plan "B", and $30 million dollars (or so, depending on the needs for launch and shortly beyond) is not too much to pay for that security.  My hunch is that Apple had a "stretch" goal, but it didn't pan out, and they went with the "safe" goal.

     

    What I disagree with (about the analyst's assertions) is that this came down to the last couple of weeks before the decision was made.  It was likely made months ago, before the analyst virtually guaranteed that sapphire was going to be used.  He just doesn't want to admit that he was wrong to act so sure.

  • Reply 46 of 59
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     



    yes, it's obvious thats what happened....in your mind.

     

    seriously -- no one knows, no one can know. we weren't there, we won't be there. it's equally as plausible that the sapphire was only intended for watch first, and they had a hard time producing for that goal. who knows. not me, not you.


    Just look at the evidence:  the massive potential output of the Arizona plant coupled with the failure of GTAT to satisfy Apple's needs.  And we won't have to wait long to know either:  GTAT is going to have to spill some beans about what went wrong in tomorrow's bankruptcy hearing.

     

    Thompson

  • Reply 47 of 59
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post





    Well as we know from all the reports of WMD in Iraq and much, much, much more over the years ... The media really aren't accounable to anyone. Welcome to the "free press".



    wait, what? it was the Bush admin (hawks) that pushed the "fact" that there were WMDs in Iraq. an american intelligence analyst even later came out and said his report that there may be WMDs was intentionally twisted by the admin so they could say there was for sure. 

  • Reply 48 of 59
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     

    ... I been in the product development for 25 yrs and I can tell you that no company tries to rush any product to market and pulling a feature like Sapphire display out the last minute did not happen. It was never part of the plan, the plan was always the watch, and it make more sense than anything else...


    I agree with the assertion that Apple would not wait until the last minute to pull a feature.

     

    I do not agree that sapphire was never a part of the plan for iPhones.  The potential output of that Arizona plant is far too great to have only been for the watches and the other small sapphire pieces on the iPhone.  I think that as recently as March, sapphire was a stretch goal for iPhones (at least some models) but that Apple had Gorilla Glass screens in development too.  They had to make the choice sometime before manufacturing ramp, which means well before the last minute.

     

    We will know a bit more tomorrow, perhaps.  While GTAT probably won't be able to say what products their goals were supposed to support, they will be forced to provide information about what those goals were (as far as quantity, quality, etc) and what Apple did contractually that resulted in their fiscal crisis.  I think that when we look at those numbers, we will be able to better judge what Apple's intent was.

     

    Thompson

  • Reply 49 of 59
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post

     

    Just look at the evidence:  the massive potential output of the Arizona plant coupled with the failure of GTAT to satisfy Apple's needs.  And we won't have to wait long to know either:  GTAT is going to have to spill some beans about what went wrong in tomorrow's bankruptcy hearing.




    there is no "evidence". if there were "evidence" it would be published as fact. it isn't. it's speculation. you simply don't -- and can't -- know. maybe it will all come out some day, but that day isn't today.

  • Reply 50 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     



    wait, what? it was the Bush admin (hawks) that pushed the "fact" that there were WMDs in Iraq. an american intelligence analyst even later came out and said his report that there may be WMDs was intentionally twisted by the admin so they could say there was for sure. 


    Yea but your media and ours just acted as the broadcasting station for the government. Find MSM that said "No way" and I'd be surprised. After the event they were much wiser of course. Check their sources? Hmmm.

  • Reply 51 of 59
    SOP for Murdoch-owned media.
  • Reply 52 of 59
    felix01felix01 Posts: 294member
    Looks like I don't need to renew my WSJ subscription. If their Apple "sources" can't get the long-lead iPhone screen composition right, how am I supposed to buy into their financial reporting.
  • Reply 53 of 59
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

     



    there is no "evidence". if there were "evidence" it would be published as fact. it isn't. it's speculation. you simply don't -- and can't -- know. maybe it will all come out some day, but that day isn't today.


    Well, two things are facts:

     

    (1) Apple built a tremendous sapphire plant in Arizona and equipped it with enough furnaces to double the world's entire supply of sapphire.  (The shipping manifest data was available online once upon a time, but I didn't bookmark it...)

     

    (2) GTAT failed to meet Apple's expectations and went from solvent to bankrupt as a result.  (Details of the GTAT contract with Apple were made available last fall, and performance triggers were in place so Apple could do just what they have done here.)

     

    Today might not be the day that we can do more than speculate about the evidence above, but tomorrow very well might be.  GTAT has promised more details about how and why their economic fortunes turned so quickly.

     

    Meanwhile, if we are left to speculate - and let's face it, that's what we do here - then I assert that it makes sense to speculate that the plant in Arizona was built for far more than just small-screen watches and tiny sapphire piece-parts for iPhones.  Likewise, it makes sense to speculate that the GTAT failure had significant impact on Apple's plans.  Meanwhile, the facts above don't fit with many of the speculations that others on this thread are putting forth.

     

    On the other hand, I agree with what many are saying, i.e. that Tim Cook would never go for such a bold plan (as, for instance, a sapphire screen designed for a new iPhone) without also investing in a plan B (as, for instance, a Gorilla Glass screen designed for said phone).  I also believe that we haven't heard the end of the concept of sapphire iPhones.  Maybe that comes next year.  Apple has the plant.  Apple has the equipment.  Apple has the rights to use the IP.  Apple can hire the top talent from GTAT.  (If you managed to keep your job with the struggling GTAT, would you stay if Apple came knocking?)  Why shouldn't Apple continue trying to iron out the production kinks and get the quality/quantity up?

  • Reply 54 of 59
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post

     

    I agree with the assertion that Apple would not wait until the last minute to pull a feature.

     

    I do not agree that sapphire was never a part of the plan for iPhones.  The potential output of that Arizona plant is far too great to have only been for the watches and the other small sapphire pieces on the iPhone.  I think that as recently as March, sapphire was a stretch goal for iPhones (at least some models) but that Apple had Gorilla Glass screens in development too.  They had to make the choice sometime before manufacturing ramp, which means well before the last minute.

     

    We will know a bit more tomorrow, perhaps.  While GTAT probably won't be able to say what products their goals were supposed to support, they will be forced to provide information about what those goals were (as far as quantity, quality, etc) and what Apple did contractually that resulted in their fiscal crisis.  I think that when we look at those numbers, we will be able to better judge what Apple's intent was.

     

    Thompson


    Actually and I will try and find the information.

     

    The AZ plant can not produce enough sapphire for all the iphone alone, it may be physically big enough but lack one important thing, power. Someone did the calculation base on the spec of the sapphire furnaces that GTAT builds and their stated output capacity, it would require AZ to install a small Nuclear power plant to just supply the facility with enough power to run all the required furnaces. Also there is no AZ PUC project of record to increase power output or upgrade electrical infrastructure in the area of AZ Sapphire plant. Putting solar arrays would not be enough.

     

    Okay found this, there appears to be some work in progress on getting more power for apple, they claim apple is going to use as much renewable power, but again solar panels can not deliver kind of power furnaces required. The calculated number I remember seeing was about 200 MegWatt of power.

     

    http://www.treehugger.com/green-investments/apple-wants-massive-arizona-sapphire-plant-run-renewable-energy-day-one.html

  • Reply 55 of 59
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,695member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Are you one of those "anyone should be able to say anything at anytime, with no consequences" people? This has nothing to do with "free speech". It has to do with an analyst manipulating the market, then lying his ass off. 

    errr... I forgot the /s, I thought the use of the word 'thingy' might have been obvious, but obviously not ... my bad.
  • Reply 56 of 59

    This site accuses WSJ of printing speculation and this site prints out right false information than an amature hack like me can spend 15mins searching to prove is false.  What a bunch of BS.

  • Reply 57 of 59
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    nolamacguy wrote: »

    yes, it's obvious thats what happened....in your mind.

    seriously -- no one knows, no one can know. we weren't there, we won't be there. it's equally as plausible that the sapphire was only intended for watch first, and they had a hard time producing for that goal. who knows. not me, not you.
    Umm, yes it's speculation. Just like this and the WSJ articles are speculation. At least my speculation comports with the facts. Why was Apple building out 10 times the world's sapphire supply? For a watch? The math doesn't add up. And why did Apple withhold payment on the buildout? The watch is going into production. If Apple needed that factory running full tilt to supply watches, only an fuking, idiot would send them into bankruptcy. Apple doesn't even know yet what demand will be. It's obvious that the factory is capable of producing an order of magnitude more sapphire than they need for the watch and so the bankruptcy doesn't matter.
    FYI, Im a patent lawyer and entrepreneur. I draft license agreements for clients and negotiate them in my business. It may not be obvious to you what happened, but to me this is like seeing a dead cat in the middle of a busy highway and asking, "I wonder how that cat died"?
  • Reply 58 of 59
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    Actually and I will try and find the information.

    The AZ plant can not produce enough sapphire for all the iphone alone, it may be physically big enough but lack one important thing, power. Someone did the calculation base on the spec of the sapphire furnaces that GTAT builds and their stated output capacity, it would require AZ to install a small Nuclear power plant to just supply the facility with enough power to run all the required furnaces. Also there is no AZ PUC project of record to increase power output or upgrade electrical infrastructure in the area of AZ Sapphire plant. Putting solar arrays would not be enough.

    Okay found this, there appears to be some work in progress on getting more power for apple, they claim apple is going to use as much renewable power, but again solar panels can not deliver kind of power furnaces required. The calculated number I remember seeing was about 200 MegWatt of power.

    http://www.treehugger.com/green-investments/apple-wants-massive-arizona-sapphire-plant-run-renewable-energy-day-one.html
    Interesting analysis. It's possible the sapphire was intended for a future iPhone. If they didn't have power yet, they were at least a year out from being in shipping product. That may also explain why the CEO was all thumbs up in August. He may not have gotten the notice from Apple until recently. That would only be possible if delivery was for next year.
Sign In or Register to comment.