Originally Posted by guyladouche
I understand what you're saying, but the assumption for that situation to be true would be that it's Pegatron initiating this because it wants to produce more for Apple while reducing the overall strain on their resources by having to deal with multiple customers. Agreed, it's more efficient for them to have a sole-customer, but that's not what's happened--Apple approached them--the company that's also making a direct-competitor to Apple's ultrabook market--and threatened them. It's not at all an issue of Pegatron making a decision for what makes the most business sense in terms of efficiency of supporting multiple clients, it's Apple making an underhanded action to try to remove a competitor from their ultrabook segment. Totally different scenario from "economies of scale."
You are thinking to linearly. Think outside of the box and re-read my premise and argument again. The premise that I am making is that Pegatron's decision is still based on economies of scale, or maybe I should say the idea of economies of scale. The argument that I am making is that it is foresight that is driving them to conform to Apple's request. They want
to have have a chance of becoming a large-scale manufacturer for Apple and as such are cornered into making the only logical decision, drop (limited) run of Ultrabooks and appease Apple. There are no "threats" in that sense at play here. Apple cannot threaten Pegatron or coerce them into ceding anything unless such a "threat" is framed as a business proposition which logically makes sense and could result in more profits for Pegatron. The potential
of becoming a major manufacturer for the richest corporation in the world is not something that any manufacturer would shrug off or let their loyalties get in the way.