Japan Display Inc said on Friday that it would build a new $1.4 billion liquid crystal display (LCD) manufacturing plant, which a source said would supply smartphone screens for Apple Inc.
But it recently reported a rebound to profit, boosted by demand from Apple and Chinese smartphone makers, in stark contrast with Japanese competitor Sharp Corp’s shrinking panel business.
昨夜 BBC の番組 Panorama はこれらの価値観［注：アップルは世界の人権と平等の向上に専心するという価値観］に問題を投げかけた。多くの皆さん同様に、ティム・クックと私［Jeff Williams］はアップルがサプライチェーンの労働者に対し約束を破った、あるいは形はどうあれ顧客を欺いたという指摘には深い怒りを覚える。
Last night, the BBC’s Panorama program called those values into question. Like many of you, Tim and I were deeply offended by the suggestion that Apple would break a promise to the workers in our supply chain or mislead our customers in any way.
事実と考え方について皆さんにお話したい。これらはすべて BBC に対しても事前に説明したが、明らかに番組では取り上げなかったものだ。
I’d like to give you facts and perspective, all of which we shared with the BBC in advance, but were clearly missing from their program.
［BBC Panorama Apple’s Broken Promises BBC Documentary 2014 [Workers Life in china Making iphone 6] | YouTube］
［BBC Panorama Apple’s Broken Promises BBC Documentary 2014 [Workers Life in china Making iphone 6] | YouTube］
But there’s one particularly interesting stat that explains why Apple and GTAT even bothered in the first place. Apple is already consuming “one-fourth of the world’s supply of sapphire to cover the iPhone’s camera lens and fingerprint reader,” Wakabayashi writes.
That is impressively high—and about to get a whole lot higher. Sure, Apple could sell 200 million fingerprint-reading iPhones and iPads next year, but such readers are relatively small. Imagine the volumes when the company starts making watches with sapphire displays, and iPhones with sapphire screens.
Daisuke Wakabayashi, the Wall Street Journal: “The Apple-GT marriage was troubled from the start. GT hadn’t mass-produced sapphire before the Apple deal. The New Hampshire company’s first 578-pound cylinder of sapphire, made just days before the companies signed their contract, was flawed and unusable. GT hired hundreds of workers with little oversight; some bored employees were paid overtime to sweep floors repeatedly, while others played hooky.”
真実はこういうことだ。世界で最大の時価総額を誇るアップルはいまやサプライヤーに対して生殺与奪の権を握っているということだ。（かつてジョブズが ATI に激怒したときはほとんど影響がなかった。） アップルのサプライヤーだと分かることには絶対的な価値がある、とアップルサプライヤーの上位 200 社に入るあるある会社は Guardian に対して語る。「アップルが高品質の製造スペックを持っていると認められていることに価値があるのです。したがってアップルとサプライヤー関係があるということはサプライヤーが提供する製品に対してもいい影響をもたらすのです。」
The reality is that Apple, as the most valuable company on Earth by market capitalisation, now has the power to make or break a company through its supplier relationships (unlike Jobs’s pique, which had minimal effect on ATI). Being known as a supplier to it has definite value, one company – which is listed in Apple’s top 200 list – told the Guardian: “The value lies in the fact that Apple is recognised as having a high-quality build spec, so a relationship reflects well on that supplier’s products,” an executive said.
And even if Apple doesn’t name a company as a supplier, its name will still leak out, as one supplier executive explained to the Guardian: “Tech analysts always ‘tear down’ a new model – components are usually stamped with the suppliers’ names inside. Reviews of new phones will mention key components with regard to performance enhancement.”
The executive didn’t want to be named – or to have their company named. He said that isn’t unusual: “None of the top players let their suppliers talk about supplying them – it’s too competitive an industry to allow this.” The Guardian contacted a number of suppliers to Apple; all indicated that they could not talk on the record.
＊ ＊ ＊
例外的な GTAT
その点 GTAT だけが例外だった。アップルとの関係を公にしてしまったからだ・・・
In that sense, GTAT was unusual, because its supplier relationship was so public. […]
Are such onerous terms unique to Apple, I asked another of its suppliers? “The leading handset manufacturers all have strong pricing power vis-a-vis their suppliers, but that is universal across most industries,” its executive said. “As a supplier, one needs to find a USP [unique selling point] that the customer values enough to pay for it.”
And would they take a loan from Apple? Are they offered on better or worse terms than a bank’s? “We have good cash flow and a robust balance sheet so do not have need of loans from any customers,” the executive replies, cautiously.
For Apple, meanwhile, the loss of one supplier is not the end of the world. It reverted to Corning for its screens, with Phil Schiller talking of their “ion-strengthened” qualities.
The story of GTAT shows us what might have been: iPhones with sapphire screens, and a successful US-based manufacturing story. It also shone a light on the desperate struggle to implement new technology at a global scale – and the penalties for failure.
Projects with Apple and its suppliers are given secret code names to prevent leaks. The sapphire manufacturing operation run by GT Advanced was known as “Project Onyx.”
Apple to sapphire supplier: “Put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement”
Squiller がいうには、アップルはサプライヤーとは交渉しないから、GTAT のマネージャーは交渉に「ムダな時間を割く」べきではないと一切交渉に応じようとはしなかった。GTAT が二の足を踏むと、アップルの条件は他のアップルサプライヤーとも共通なので、「子供じみたことはやめて（put on your big boy pants）［注］さっさとサプライヤー契約を受け入れろ」といったという。 ［注］big boy pants/big girl panties はオムツを卆業した子供がはくパンツ。そこからもう大人らしく振る舞えとの意。
Squiller says that Apple did not ever really enter into negotiations, warning that GTAT’s managers should “not waste their time” negotiating because Apple does not negotiate with its suppliers. According to GTAT, after the company balked, Apple told GTAT that its terms are standard for other Apple suppliers and that GTAT should “put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement.”
Because most of Apple’s hardware suppliers are based in Asia, it’s hard to tell whether the details described in the GTAT contracts with Apple are standard, but it’s not hard to believe that Apple has a lot of power over its suppliers and largely gets to dictate its terms.
– A $50 million penalty for breach of confidentiality per occurrence.
– No manufacturing processes could be modified by GTAT without Apple’s prior consent but GTAT must immediately implement Apple’s suggestions.
– GTAT must fulfill any purchase order placed by Apple on the date selected by Apple or purchase substitute goods at GTAT’s expense.
In addition, because of the way the loan was structured, the famous Mesa, Arizona plant was allegedly built without GTAT’s input, which resulted in the decision to forgo essential backup power generators because they were too expensive. Apple also embedded its own employees at the Mesa plant who “assumed a level of authority” and had to be reminded not to order GTAT employees around.
Squiller said that initially Apple wanted to purchase sapphire furnaces from GTAT, but ended up offering a different deal: A new structure where GTAT borrowed money from Apple to purchase sapphire furnace components in order to supply Apple with sapphire crystal. Apple also prohibited GTAT from doing business with other manufacturers or suppliers working in consumer electronics.
In his statement, Squiller called Apple’s tactics a “classic bait-and-switch strategy” and described the final agreement as “onerous and massively one-sided.” Making things worse for GTAT, if Apple decided not to use sapphire crystal in upcoming products — GTAT sapphire is not used in the iPhone 6 — GTAT would be required to fully repay the loan in cash.
Tim Cook とビジネスをするのはどんな感じだろうか？ アップルが実際に結ぶ契約条件が目に触れることはめったにない。しかしアップルのサファイア製造を請け負っていた GT Advanced Technologies［GTAT］が破産したおかげでそれがたっぷり見れることになった。
What’s it like doing business with Tim Cook? It’s rare the public gets to see terms of an actual contract with Apple. But thanks to the bankruptcy case for GT Advanced Technologies—which was working on a sapphire production business with Apple that didn’t work out—here’s a good look.
＊ ＊ ＊
一方的な契約条件
アップルにとって一方的に有利な契約条件のいくつかを Philip Elmer-DeWitt［Fortune］が列挙している。パートナーシップがどんな仕掛けになっているか、競争制限条項、何よりもアップルの同意獲得が優先することなど。（破産裁判所への提訴書類の PDF はこちら。）
Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt runs through some of the supposed one-sided terms of Apple’s deal with GTAT, including how the partnership was structured, a non-compete clause, and the various things that required getting consent from Apple first. (The filing is available here as a PDF.)
特に次の条項がアップルに選ばれたサプライヤーに課せられる厳しさをつぶさに物語っている。
But this section of testimony speaks to the level of detail—and weight—of what it’s like when Apple wants to rely on you.
GTAT must accept and fulfill any purchase order placed by Apple on the date selected by Apple. If there is any delay, GTAT must either use expedited shipping (at its own cost) or purchase substitute goods (at its own cost). If GTAT’s delivery is late, GTAT must pay $320,000 per boule of sapphire (and $77 per millimeter of sapphire material) as liquidated damages to Apple. To put this figure in perspective, a boule has a cost of less than $20,000. Apple, however, has the right, without compensating GTAT, to cancel a purchase order in whole or in part at any time and reschedule a delivery date at any time.
On Tuesday, after three weeks of legal wrangling, Squiller filed a revised declaration that is probably as close as we’re going to get to a definitive account of where the deal went south.
In 21 pages of testimony, Squiller tells a tale of woe that says volumes about what it’s like for a small manufacturer to do business with a company as powerful and demanding as Apple.
maclalala2 