GT Advanced Technologies Inc fka GTAT

[LarryAshy]

Ugh!!! I covered these exact same issues in post #18723.

Let's look at this...from your article:

"Foxconn might get in on Apple’s sapphire business for future iPhones, according to a source speaking with Cult of Mac.
"

"Might get in on" infers they are not doing it yet.

"While Foxconn has no actual experience growing sapphire, it is reportedly very interested in the material, and has been actively pursuing various sapphire related patents over the past several years."

"Foxconn’s array of sapphire patents include LCD displays with sapphire, protective sapphire covers, methods of sapphire growth, as well as a laser process to cut sapphire substrates to eliminate the need for grinding and polishing."

No experience yet...Where do you think they are going to get these patents? From GT. Pretty sure Foxconn doesn't have lasers!

"A big challenge for Apple in getting sapphire production up and running is the significant capital investment to make the material in the quantities necessary. To give an idea, in order to meet its demand for iPhone cover screens, Apple would need around 3,000 165kg producing sapphire furnaces, or 2,000 262kg producing furnaces."

I get the feeling that you assume GT is going to sell the furnaces to Foxconn, which means disassembling Mesa and shipping it overseas...RIDICULOUS!
"A big challenge for Apple in getting sapphire production up and running". This means there is currently NO production. It also means that they would have STOP the CURRENT production to disassemble, ship, reassemble, start producing.

"Foxconn’s involvement could help fund the necessary capital outlays, which likely total between $1-2 billion in order to refrofit existing structures in China, and also acquire the thousands of sapphire growth furnaces needed to expand Apple’s sapphire supply chain. The most critical requirements for sapphire growth are uninterrupted power and a steady supply of water.
"

"Acquire thousands.." Once again, they do not have them yet. How long will it take to get them?
"The most critical requirements for sapphire growth are uninterrupted power and a steady supply of water."LMAO!!!! Maybe they will get it right this time!

"If the company hopes to feature sapphire screens for any of its fall 2015 products, Apple needs to act quickly to get the equipment and buildings ready for production by spring 2015."

Sure isn't going to happen if they disassemble Mesa.

"According to the source speaking with Cult of Mac, sapphire production could be carried out in both China and Mesa, Arizona — but will likely wind up landing in China. Apple is said to have been actively pursuing sapphire growth manufacturers to operate its Mesa sapphire furnaces, and one unnamed sapphire equipment provider is reportedly “very confident” of the company’s ability to find an operator."

Sounds like the exact same thing I said in the post I referenced above...work in conjunction with...2 factories.
Also interesting...I raised a question in one of my posts awhile back in regards to the settlement agreement. I wondered why there was a "Dual Occupancy Clause" in there. Apple needs GT to train someone else how to operate their stuff and use their technology.

It's pretty obvious you are a huge fan of Apple and want this to be their thing and brag about how ingenious they are and blah, blah, blah. That's ok. Just don't think they can do this without GT.

In my previous post, I said that I thought GT will still be at this project for the near future(please just read the post, I don't feel like typing it again), your own article basically just proved that!

Also keep in mind...GT has the rights to the Mesa factory until at least the beginning of 2017(if you have to ask why, you haven't been paying attention). They will be growing Sapphire for Apple for the near future, because the alternative is to just stop production until someone else can do it. Pretty sure this isn't going to happen. The only way they get kicked out early is for violating the terms of the lease...hope they don't violate that "Right to quiet enjoyment" clause.

All in all...this article you posted has absolutely no bearing on the current conversation. Quite frankly, that article is all conjecture, really no facts in it.