Apple is “using its pile of cash to become the single buyer that controls key high-tech supply chains,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.
Advertisement: Students, parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac.
“In two different forums, discussions about what to do about Apple’s growing cash problem have come around to seeing things the way Steve Jobs and Tim Cook do,” P.E.D. reports. “In January, you may recall, COO Tim Cook pointed to the $3.9 billion Apple prepaid last summer to three unnamed suppliers for new process equipment and tooling, as ‘an absolutely fantastic use of Apple’s cash.'”
Much more in the full article, including a a Quora post by an anonymous user that reads like a strategic business plan written by Apple’s leadership team, here.
$3.9 billion is only a small amount of their cash…
The article links to itself, not to Fortune.
As to Apple presumably hampering with production of competitor’s tablets, it is grossly overblown thanks to tabloid DigiTimes rumours. They repeatedly run these nonsense type of stories even though Apple is not and will not ever be interested in these cheapo TN panels or plastic production facilities that competitor use for production of their tablets.
Main problem with competitor’s tablets is that their are worse, sometimes much worse than iPad. It is too convenient to them to spread nonsense rumours that evil Apple bought all of the just that they are making their tablets of.
*just>junk in the last sentence; sorry.
Recently, almost all of tablet producers are said to cut that their sales plans for tablets — and none of this has anything to do with presumed by rumours lack of components.
Exactly the reality. If Apple weren’t making the best devices and user experiences, they would not be buying up most of the components, ensuring their supplies, and enjoying volume discounts. It’s a default situation based on Apple’s fabulousness.
They just make stories that cast a dark shadow on Apple so everyone will read them.
And, again, key components are different than junk that others use to build tablets. Even touch screens that Apple orders are different than “similar” for other tablets (bigger quantity of sensor lines — about 1000 for iPad contrary to hundreds less in sensors for other tablets). So there is little competitors for components between Apple and others.
wtf is a monopsonist.
monopsonist (noun)
A single buyer that controls key high-tech supply chains.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monopsonist
If you read the article you’ll find out.
A monopsonist is buyer who controls a market.
If you had read the Oxford American dictionary, you’d find out that monopsonist is not a word.
It has letters and can be pronounced, therefor it is a word. Maybe not recognized as legitimate, but still a word.
You’re an idiot.
Look up monopsony in Wiki. He is not an
idiot and it is a word.
You’re an idiot too if you consider Wikipedia a legitimate source of etymology.
@ daugav369pils,
Actually he’s correct: I am an idiot. But, that’s beside the point.
It’s in American Heritage dictionary, 4th edition for iPad… Perhaps you need a larger dictionary?
It’s in American Heritage dictionary, 4th edition for iPad. I’d guess it is in any other large dictionary, though perhaps under the entry for “monopsony.” Are you sure you looked it up right? It is certainly a word.
If you were a Mac user, you use the built in dictionary app and know it is a word.
What an obnoxious Windows troll!
Here is the article:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/05/how-apple-became-a-monopsonist/
Ok now get the supply chain to give us this:
http://liliputing.com/2011/05/readius-concept-tablet-could-fold-up-and-fit-in-your-pocket.html
Well, if it ever becomes feasible, Apple will consider it, for sure.
Les, the flexible display is a product in search of a need (as evidenced by the useless gimmicks used to exhibit the product) and the second is a horribly bulky overly complex design that seems to have no point at all. (most likely a student project, it is unlikely that any real industrial designer would think that was even close to acceptable)
Form follows function my friend, not the other way ’round.
I’ve always thought that the best use of Apple’s cash is to keep it and spend it when necessary. Not all this crap about returning some back to the shareholders…
Turnover is vanity. Profit is sanity. Cash is king.
“Cash is king.”
Only in a structured society. In times of chaos and disorder, guns and ammo are the freakin’ Emperor!
Send lawyers Guns and money
The Sh_t has hit the fan
—Zevon
Zevon has settled the mattter: You need all three.
Apple is using its cash horde to innovate. Why do anything new if everyone can just copy it. This is a first mover competitive advantage – it is not monopolist behavior – that would entail Apple buying the technology outright and not selling it to competitors.
Before there was even a clear market for the iPad, Apple had already set prices for the device. I agree with everything said about Apple seeing potential in a technology and putting it’s money where it’s mouth is and bringing new technology to the mainstream faster. But a lot has to be said about the gambles they take. One bad bet can seriously cost them.
A lot has to be said about their decisions making. It’s not just about having money the money to spend.