4 ms·

I don't think there is one quite so nefarious, the tale I usually hear is that Apple buys out the manufacturing capacity, say, on 8GB ram chips - and then its c

I don't think there is one quite so nefarious, the tale I usually hear is that Apple buys out the manufacturing capacity, say, on 8GB ram chips - and then its competitors can't find 8GB chips for their own phones, and have to offer a meager 6GB of RAM instead. (If you think about it, doubling your RAM just so manufacturers don't have the capacity to supply your competitors is pretty ruthless and genius) Googling aroubd I see other stories of Apple buying all available capacity of 5nm manufacturing or glass or sapphire for smartwatch screens etc, here's one source for RAM tho (2009): https://appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/18/apple_buying_up_available_flash_ram_supplies_for_next_iphone https://appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/18/apple_buying_up_a...

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Buying something to destroy it so someone else cannot have it is nefarious. Buying something in sufficient quantities that results in others not having it, but still selling out of it is not nefarious.
microtherion 5y ago
And it's not like Apple waltzes in and just stuffs all the RAM that's lying around into a shopping cart. One of their uses of their cash reserves is to pre-commit to buying the components they need far in advance. In principle, it seems to me that this shouldn't be causing component shortages — on the contrary, it should reduce planning uncertainty for component manufacturers.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  The fact that some companies have contracts for reoccurring scheduled delivers of parts means when the SHTF it's going to be really bad for those that don't. If Apple has a contract to buy 10% of a manufacturers capacitors. But then material shortages drops the manufacturers capacity in half. Apple's share is now 20% and anyone without a standing order is SOL.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The situation would be the same if Apple did not have a contract, since they can afford to pay a higher. The contract lets manufacturers more easily invest in future capacity.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      No, without the contract Apple would have to pay more per part. The contracts are x for $y. They do have clauses for price increases so Apple might be paying more, but not what they would pay without the long term contract. I don't have insight into Apple ,justthis is how contracts work in general
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        My comment was to note that Apple would still end up with 20% of the production since they can afford a higher price. So the same situation in terms of allocation with or without a contract, in contrast to what I thought Gibbon1’s comment implies.
Tenoke 5y ago
In 2009 maybe but for the last 10 years there have always been competitors to Apple who have cheaper phones with more ram on them.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Buying something to destroy it so someone else cannot have it is nefarious. Buying something in sufficient quantities that results in others not having it, but still selling out of it is not nefarious.

microtherion 5y ago

And it's not like Apple waltzes in and just stuffs all the RAM that's lying around into a shopping cart. One of their uses of their cash reserves is to pre-commit to buying the components they need far in advance. In principle, it seems to me that this shouldn't be causing component shortages — on the contrary, it should reduce planning uncertainty for component manufacturers.

Gibbon1 5y ago
The fact that some companies have contracts for reoccurring scheduled delivers of parts means when the SHTF it's going to be really bad for those that don't. If Apple has a contract to buy 10% of a manufacturers capacitors. But then material shortages drops the manufacturers capacity in half. Apple's share is now 20% and anyone without a standing order is SOL.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The situation would be the same if Apple did not have a contract, since they can afford to pay a higher. The contract lets manufacturers more easily invest in future capacity.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    No, without the contract Apple would have to pay more per part. The contracts are x for $y. They do have clauses for price increases so Apple might be paying more, but not what they would pay without the long term contract. I don't have insight into Apple ,justthis is how contracts work in general
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      My comment was to note that Apple would still end up with 20% of the production since they can afford a higher price. So the same situation in terms of allocation with or without a contract, in contrast to what I thought Gibbon1’s comment implies.

Tenoke 5y ago

In 2009 maybe but for the last 10 years there have always been competitors to Apple who have cheaper phones with more ram on them.