So how much...
do you think Apple will pay for the facility at the sale...?
Apple and GT Advanced Technologies, the materials company that was once slated to provide scratchproof sapphire glass for iPhones and other Apple products, have agreed to an "amicable parting of the ways," according to sources with knowledge of GT's bankruptcy litigation. The Wall Street Journal reports that Apple and GT will …
"But think about it... Apple buys the plants, gets the money back, now has nice, shiny new plants for sale at no cost to them."
I know some people can't pass by a great deal. But it isn't such a great deal if the plants can't produce sapphire of a type and quality suitable for screens. And a reasonable production cost, which has been the issue with sapphire so far.
And Apple loaned GT $359 million. Since GT is in bankruptcy, that money is gone. If Apple bought these plants, all they would be doing, is returning money to themselves.
Also, why did GT setup so many facilities? Screens are small, and can shipped easily. Gorilla Glass was originally produced at only one factory to both keep costs down, but keep quality (and integrity of the process) high.
re "it would be allowed sell off the Mesa facility and return the money to Cupertino, without disclosing any further information about the companies' relationship."
So it goes like this? :-
GT did the donkey work but Apple had a better deal planned with a more skilled tenant once GT sapphire kit was in. And GT extracted something for themselves via semi-blackmail.
Apple still suckered them good and proper.
How do you explain the CEO's stock sales then?
The SEC is going to want some questions answered over this.
Personally, I think that the CEO was somehing on a snake oil salesman and magician combined. He got Apple on the hook, took the money and ran away leaving the company a dead duck.
Investors will usually weigh up risks before purchasing shares in anything. This goes from the large pension funds to the individual buying shares or even putting some money towards a kickstarter project.
If things go wrong, then whilst you might not get your money back (such is the nature of speculation) you should at least be able to find out why and lessons might be learned for next time. There's a lack of transparancy and accountability in this kind of arrangement that will dent the confidence of the market and thus make investment in future projects more difficult for people to obtain. If the law permits this kind of arrangement, then the law needs to be revised.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019