GT Advanced says it's only settling with Apple because it can't afford to sue

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 72
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,513member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Yes I did bash Apple.  And for good reason.  Their choice of GTAT as a key supplier was a HUGE ERROR in judgement.  But I will give Apple a pass because there was no CRIMINAL INTENT.  It was just NEGLIGENCE.

     

    On the other hand GTAT has been showing CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR and GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

     

    Whos the bigger fool?  The fool or the fool who gets fooled by the fool????  Apple and GTAT both look bad in this.


    You over-bashed Apple due to ignorance of the contracts they had put in place (and which we only have partial information about now).  Go back and look at some of your early claims as to what Apple had lost, etc, etc.  It only took a couple of days to see how off-base some of those knee-jerk claims were.

     

    I don't think Apple's choice of GTAT was a huge mistake.  Apple apparently made a bid for some really aggressive quantity and quality goals such that if GTAT couldn't meet them then nobody could.  Given the stated (albeit apparently unfounded) expectations of GTAT making $600M-$700M revenue in the back half of 2014, not to mention the sheer size of the plant in Arizona, there is very little doubt that the "stretch goal" was for iPhones.  The relatively small quantities of material needed for an Apple Watch face, TouchID, and Camera surfaces, could only hope to generate a small fraction of that revenue or facility space, even if the Apple Watch were a tremendous hit.  So the stretch goal failed, but Apple marched on in spite of that, most likely due to alternate plans worked in parallel.  Given that they had a backup plan fully worked and ready, and given the nature of the agreements that are now coming to light, it is apparent to me that Apple is NOBODY'S fool.  Interesting that you still think they are.

     

    Also, I don't think this story is over.  Apple may yet get the material and quality that they were looking for in future years.

  • Reply 62 of 72
    hcrefugee wrote: »


    A few more interesting tidbits from the WSJ article:

    And this:

    link

    Wait, so the WSJ article is saying is that GTAT took Apple's money, took investors' money, profited from their stock riding high on hype and anticipation, then couldn't deliver what Apple required and now wants the play the victim of the big, oppressive Apple. I get it.
    starbird73 wrote: »

    Yeah, something doesn't add up here. Apple, as you said woody, continues to say they want to see what happens, wants to try and preserve the jobs, isn't asking for interest, etc.

    GTAT continues to try and paint Apple as the Evil Empire. I tell you what. If I "knew I'd win" then I wouldn't be settling. 

    Apple is a convenient scapegoat for all your bankruptcy needs.
  • Reply 63 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Apple is a convenient scapegoat for all your bankruptcy needs.

     

    It also feeds my theory. Maybe makes it official. 

     

    "It's Apple's fault" is the new "It's George Bush's fault"

  • Reply 64 of 72

    This is worrying news for Apple. 

     

    Regardless of where the blame lies for the bankruptcy, all future suppliers will be treating Apple very warily in future deals, and that is likely to have a negative impact on Apple's finances. This wasn't some humdrum supplier; it was a high-profile, seminal partnership on a scale that Apple rarely does, and will have been seen as a test case by other potential suppliers.

     

    Just imagine if you had some groundbreaking technology that you wanted to sell to Apple, but were aware that, due to the cutting edge, it had a high degree of risk. You may now well feel that the risk isn't worth it, whereas if GT hadn't gone bankrupt, you may have gone for it. It’s not really a question of determining who is at fault, but of  calculating risk.

  • Reply 65 of 72
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post



    This company is run by a bunch of losers who now are acting like bullies. I think the FTC needs to investigate GT's management team and the fact that they dumped their stock prior to filing the bankruptcy. Jail time should be on the table.

     

    They actually set their selling schedule as soon as they knew they couldn't deliver in february, that's a lot more damning to me.

  • Reply 66 of 72
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Just imagine if you had some groundbreaking technology that you wanted to sell to Apple, but were aware that, due to the cutting edge, it had a high degree of risk. You may now well feel that the risk isn't worth it, whereas if GT hadn't gone bankrupt, you may have gone for it. It’s not really a question of determining who is at fault, but of  calculating risk.

    I think that's a solid hypothetical to image.

    If I had to consider a contract with Apple this GTAT crap wouldn't be an issue, all I would concern myself were what Apple wanted, what I wanted, what specifically was in the contract, and if it could reasonably be accomplished for the timeframe, payment, quality, and quantity they were expected.
  • Reply 67 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    This is worrying news for Apple. 

     

    Regardless of where the blame lies for the bankruptcy, all future suppliers will be treating Apple very warily in future deals, and that is likely to have a negative impact on Apple's finances. This wasn't some humdrum supplier; it was a high-profile, seminal partnership on a scale that Apple rarely does, and will have been seen as a test case by other potential suppliers.

     

    Just imagine if you had some groundbreaking technology that you wanted to sell to Apple, but were aware that, due to the cutting edge, it had a high degree of risk. You may now well feel that the risk isn't worth it, whereas if GT hadn't gone bankrupt, you may have gone for it. It’s not really a question of determining who is at fault, but of  calculating risk.




    Maybe, but I'm not so sure. Apple has major deals with suppliers and builders such as Foxconn and these have worked well. The difference with this case is that the public sees some of the details which are usually confidential.

     

    Apple will take risks on groundbreaking technology that has risk. But they develop and validate in a measured way to see if it will be viable. Some turn out well and others are shut down. 

     

    What I think we have with GTAT is a case where  the deal was "sold" to Apple as ready-for-production whereas in fact there were substantial technical problems yet to be solved. 

  • Reply 68 of 72
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,878member
    This is worrying news for Apple. 

    Regardless of where the blame lies for the bankruptcy, all future suppliers will be treating Apple very warily in future deals, and that is likely to have a negative impact on Apple's finances. This wasn't some humdrum supplier; it was a high-profile, seminal partnership on a scale that Apple rarely does, and will have been seen as a test case by other potential suppliers.

    Just imagine if you had some groundbreaking technology that you wanted to sell to Apple, but were aware that, due to the cutting edge, it had a high degree of risk. You may now well feel that the risk isn't worth it, whereas if GT hadn't gone bankrupt, you may have gone for it. It’s not really a question of determining who is at fault, but of  calculating risk.

    There's always risk in any deal. I'm sure smarter companies would weigh the risk-reward properly.
  • Reply 69 of 72
    jungmark wrote: »
    This is worrying news for Apple. 

    Regardless of where the blame lies for the bankruptcy, all future suppliers will be treating Apple very warily in future deals, and that is likely to have a negative impact on Apple's finances. This wasn't some humdrum supplier; it was a high-profile, seminal partnership on a scale that Apple rarely does, and will have been seen as a test case by other potential suppliers.

    Just imagine if you had some groundbreaking technology that you wanted to sell to Apple, but were aware that, due to the cutting edge, it had a high degree of risk. You may now well feel that the risk isn't worth it, whereas if GT hadn't gone bankrupt, you may have gone for it. It’s not really a question of determining who is at fault, but of  calculating risk.

    There's always risk in any deal. I'm sure smarter companies would weigh the risk-reward properly.

    And GT weren't smart? I find that hard to believe. Presumably Apple did, too, otherwise they wouldn't have made such a big deal with them.
  • Reply 70 of 72
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,878member
    And GT weren't smart? I find that hard to believe. Presumably Apple did, too, otherwise they wouldn't have made such a big deal with them.

    Nope. That's why it's in bankruptcy now. It over promised and under delivered. Smart companies won't over promise.
  • Reply 71 of 72
    "Um, yes, I did vote for it before I voted against it."
Sign In or Register to comment.