Why the Maker of iPhones Must Not Be Named. (wsj.com) 34
It is the dominant American maker of smartphones, a household name to billions and for many makers of high-tech parts their most important customer ever. Just don't ask who it is. WSJ: In Asia, it's surreptitiously referred to as "the fruit company" or sometimes "Fuji," referring to the variety of the specific fruit in question that's cultivated in Japan. Other descriptors include "the three-trillion-dollar company" -- which slightly overstates its market value -- "the honored North American customer" and simply "the big A." In a January securities filing, O-Film Group, a Chinese maker of smartphone camera modules said it estimated a loss of up to $426 million in 2021. One reason was lost business with "a certain customer beyond these borders." Which customer? An O-Film spokesperson didn't respond to the question.
In contrast to Lord Voldemort of the Harry Potter series, the Client Who Must Not Be Named doesn't cast deadly spells or converse with serpents. Its powers, nonetheless, are fearsome. It can award -- or take away -- contracts for electronic parts and services worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That is why suppliers' public presentations and even private conversations hardly ever include the name of the company they're discussing, for fear of offending someone or accidentally revealing competitive information. The reluctance to spell out the remaining four letters beyond "A" is more than just custom. A 2014 court filing related to a former supplier's bankruptcy gave details about its confidentiality agreement with the customer. The supplier, GT Advanced Technologies, promised to pay $50 million for each breach of secrecy, according to the filing. The agreement defined breaches to include not just the usual trade secrets but also the very existence of the relationship.
At an earnings call in June 2020 by chip maker Broadcom, an analyst mentioned, without naming names, that "growth in Q3 from a seasonal perspective" might be lacking. He asked for "some more color around how we should think about the wireless expected recovery into Q4." Broadcom Chief Executive Hock E. Tan immediately knew what was up. He said he understood what the analyst was implying: Broadcom was indeed designing chips for "those big flagship phones" made by "our large North American OEM phone maker." He confirmed the delay in the OEM's products.
In contrast to Lord Voldemort of the Harry Potter series, the Client Who Must Not Be Named doesn't cast deadly spells or converse with serpents. Its powers, nonetheless, are fearsome. It can award -- or take away -- contracts for electronic parts and services worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That is why suppliers' public presentations and even private conversations hardly ever include the name of the company they're discussing, for fear of offending someone or accidentally revealing competitive information. The reluctance to spell out the remaining four letters beyond "A" is more than just custom. A 2014 court filing related to a former supplier's bankruptcy gave details about its confidentiality agreement with the customer. The supplier, GT Advanced Technologies, promised to pay $50 million for each breach of secrecy, according to the filing. The agreement defined breaches to include not just the usual trade secrets but also the very existence of the relationship.
At an earnings call in June 2020 by chip maker Broadcom, an analyst mentioned, without naming names, that "growth in Q3 from a seasonal perspective" might be lacking. He asked for "some more color around how we should think about the wireless expected recovery into Q4." Broadcom Chief Executive Hock E. Tan immediately knew what was up. He said he understood what the analyst was implying: Broadcom was indeed designing chips for "those big flagship phones" made by "our large North American OEM phone maker." He confirmed the delay in the OEM's products.
What is the point (Score:1)
Re: What is the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now look, no one is going to stone anyone until I blow this whistle, even, and I want to make this perfectly clear, EVEN if they say Apple.
Who talks about their customers in a bad light? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that is done for this customer is probably locked away in a separate room, with strictly secur
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see a single why for Apple specifically (Score:2)
Looks to me like the problem is down to the general overblown size of the whole gimmicky phone market itself.
Foxconn (Score:2)
Maker of the IPHONE is Foxconn, not Apple.
I'm fairly sure... (Score:2)
...that the major international tech companies are indeed conversing with serpents. As for magic, by right, Microsoft should have been broken up in the mid-1990s for a multitude of antitrust violations. I'd argue that if spells weren't involved, potions involving questionable ingredients of some sort were.
Re:I'm fairly sure... [the Subject has no meaning] (Score:2)
But I like the substance of your post and even wish it had been FP.
My response is somewhat tangential, however, though related to my long top-level comment about freedom (which appears below in the discussion). (When I started writing it, there were no comments on the story.) I think the primary basis of breaking up the monopolies should be how they block free choice as measured by market dominance. The path to "higher retained earnings" should lead AWAY from killing choice. In your example, that's mostly t
*pple fhtagn! (Score:2)
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh *pple R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
does the Wall Street Journal not understand?!!
It's right there in the fine print on all their supplier contracts. [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ya na kadishtu nilgh'ri stell'bsna Microsoft,
K'yarnak phlegethor l'ebumna syha'h n'ghft,
Ya hai kadishtu ep r'luh-eeh Gates eeh,
s'uhn-ngh athg li'hee orr'e syha'h.
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Google Fomalhaut n'gha-ghaa naf'lthagn
Y'ai 'ng'ngah, Yog-Apple h'ee - l'geb f'ai throdog uaaah.
Freedom depends on meaningful choice (Score:2)
Interesting story. But does the "meaning" part of "meaningful" include knowing about the provenance of the smartphone you are buying? At least that's my initial reaction.
Have to expose my bias? I think the answer is yes, at least in the case of any customer who cares to ask. If that is part of your decision criteria, then you should be able to find out if the price of the product reflects the use of discounted prison labor, just to cite one example that's getting a lot of attention these days.
And I even hav
So in other words (Score:1)
Foxconn (Score:2)
Maker of the IPHONE is Foxconn, not Apple.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it . . . (Score:2)
Can't read TFA, it's paywalled. WIthout that, I've got to ask - this is news? I suppose if the US President decides to resume nuclear bombardment of that nation, it'd be news; but right now, our President is (reasonably) sane. Nothing to see here, people. Move along, move along.
Is Apple trying to hide embarrassing sources (Score:2)
of components? Such as Chinese slave labor or places with harsh working conditions and low wages.
Would this fly in court? (Score:3)
No, your honor, I did not mention the name of the company, I only gave enough information for my listener to identify it.
Am I mad? Aren't those two carrying the exact same meaning?
No your honor, I didn't tell him to shoot himself, I told him to point this gun at himself and then shoot with the gun.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, even trivial obfuscation is quite helpful to avoid low-effort business intelligence gathering, i.e googling "Apple."
Re: (Score:2)
not for the unsuspecting consumer who may be browsing the financial news. A Pee Pee Elle (Ee) is mostly worried of how Taiwanese and Chinese companies associate themselves with the brand, and the brand wants to distance themselves from potential suicides out of company buildings out of slavery-type working conditions, or use of dirty metals, or the fact the company uses 10% renewables for it's 10% Apple production while the remaining 90% energy are coal-based. Also, it's not like Apple likes to brag they us
Re: (Score:2)
If the CEO of a public company in an earnings call says "Apple signed a big contract with us for foldable touch screens", that will not only elevate his own stock price but will start rampant speculation about Apple's next release of the iPhone which keeps Apple from controlling the market which is their core strength. Subsequently if a CEO says
The Makers say, "Nih!" (Score:2)
Why the Maker of Nih Must Not Be Name
. . .it always ends in a hilariously disaster . . .
Imagine being so insecure over a name ... (Score:2)
Not naming something just proves how insecure certain people are.
Considering the article is from WSJ, who is more interested in click bait then actual stories, I'm not surprised at this non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Foxconn? (Score:1)
Rule #1 (Score:3)
Don't talk about Fight Club.
Re: (Score:1)
Rule #2, excessive use of Rule #1 produces Rule #3: The Streisand Effect.
Supply chain security and endorsements (Score:2)
It's hilarious how pathetic /. commenters have become.
You don't allow your name to be used by your vendors for a number of reasons:
1. it could be seen as an endorsement. In a way it is, because it shows your quality is Good Enough for Apple and that you have a modicum of competence and financial stability,
2. From a supply chain point of view, you don't really want others to know who you're working with. They become targets for espionage.
3. By making sure they can't name you explicitly, you throw all claims
Speak the name of the devil ... (Score:3)
4 letters after the A? (Score:2)
ASSHO. Don't seem to be enough letters to begin with.
Codename Xenon (Score:2)
True story, for your amusement:
In a previous life, I was a mechanical engineer developing new devices at a product development consultancy. Our company had been hired by a medical device company to develop a new (2.0!) version of an existing medical device, but the client's CEO - Neil - turned out to be paranoid, dictatorial and, quite likely, sociopathic. Unlike Apple, the wider world probably didn't give a crap what new product they were developing - it was a decidedly unsexy, niche B2B thing, but accordi
Do we think free markets work or not? (Score:2)
If I can't talk about my transaction partner, then their behavior cannot be influenced by market forces. Silence helps the abuser.
If you're good enough to buy from, then you're good enough for other people to know I bought from you.
Especially for any publicly traded business. Investors should be able to perform due diligence (investigate a company's actions) before owning a share.