3 ms·

Fair point, but saying that Dow Corning is not high-tech because it did not win the Apple iPhone business is akin to saying Foursquare is not 'high-tech' since

Fair point, but saying that Dow Corning is not high-tech because it did not win the Apple iPhone business is akin to saying Foursquare is not 'high-tech' since FB also does location based services. The NYT article does not give any detail on that specific contract, margins paid, etc. There are many reasons DC might not have that specific business but that doesn't detract from the sophistication of their current mftg or its location in the US. I work in mftg and many of the branded, PR-heavy products are actually pretty poor decisions from an economic standpoint - think of Andrioid's market share compared to Apple's profit-share.

bootload 15y ago
"... saying that Dow Corning is not high-tech because it did not win the Apple iPhone business ..." I didn't say that. I cited the reference. Corning Inc. has the technology to produce the product. The article cites lead time to set up a batch-run & lack of facilities. Corning Inc. lost out because the Chinese firm was able to meet the un-reasonable constraints, faster. Is that the real reason Corning Inc. lost? I don't know, I just remember the NYT quote. "Dow Corning have kept significant amounts of manufacturing in the country" When an MIT hack reports Corning Inc. as an example of keeping manufacturing in the US and the NYT incidentally reports Corning Inc. loosing a contract to supplying a high volume, hi-tech manufactured product, something doesn't tally. What's the real answer?
- tsotha 15y ago
  Presumably Corning has other contracts. It's not that unusual to lose a contract to the competition, foreign or domestic.