Pierre-X: I did not use SEG's Medalist 8641 series for comparison because the average seek time is 10.5 ms instead of WD's 9.5ms. *641 is a slower drive. I think that APM's 1.7G/platter is not optimal for WD's HDD yield, and that is the one that WD considers axing.
For this quarter, WD does have a hole in its product offering if 1.7G/p is axed. WD will rely on 1.3G/platter, 2.1G/platter and other lower G/p if 1.7G/platter is history. And, the percentage of products using 2.1/platter will be about 20% of the total HDD planned for this quarter's shipment per the conf call. But the yield on both 1.3G/p and 2.1G/p are supposed to be very good contrary to the misconception by someone in HDD thread. Lehman's report and WDC's conf call only point to the yield issue with 1.7G/p. From hindsight, the 1.7G/p TFI technology may be over-extended for APM and for WDC, and not easy for other components in HDD to work with.
However, the most popular HDD products in the market place now is 2G to 3G. How does WD offer its products in this environment without 1.7G/p? I suspect the following:
1.6G: 0.8G/p TFI (?)
2G: by 2.1G/p MR
2.5G: by 1.3G/p TFI
3G: ? (I think that WD will continue to ship HDD in this category by word from conf call.)
4G: 2.1G/p MR or 1.3G/p TFI
6.4G: 2.1G/p MR
So, WD still has the hottest segment 2G-3G covered. And, from cost stand point, WD may have a vacant density position between 3G and 4G, but this is not the hottest selling category. And, it can very well be substituted by 2-platter MR drives of 4.2G.
Per WD's call, they will bring MR desktop HDD offering up to 50% next quarter. If they can do that for the March quarter, they will greatly improve their pricing position against the price erosion. And, that is why I think that either this quarter or next may be the worst.
Anyway, the cost should be analyzed by knowing the material contents of the HDD because it is a major portion of the total HDD cost.
John |
