Dan,
No, I assumed more than a doubling, from 350,000 to 750,000 as other manufacturers besides Samsung began volume production.
No, you assumed that other vendors would be coming aboard, not that Samsung would be doubling their production during the year. The market will grow in two ways: 1) new vendors will come on board, and 2) existing (and new) vendors will continue to ramp production. You assumed that other vendors would leave Samsung with a 50% market share. I said that Samsung's market share would be closer to their actual market share of 20% (although I even gave them the benefit of the doubt a little and said 33%). You then assumed that neither Samsung nor any of the other vendors would increase production throughout the year. I said that if they (Samsung) can double from Q4 to Q1, they (and the industry) can double again from Q1 to Q4 (9 months). Again, you guys are the ones saying there will be such a shortage it'll get a black eye. The reality is that a tremendous shortage will generate a tremendous drive to pick up the slack. You accounted for #1 above, but not for #2.
But you are assuming a trouble free ramp from zero to 6 million units per month over a 6 month period. You see no chance for less than a perfect, on schedule ramp? There is zero experience with large volume production of rambus.
We're just using Samsung's stated plans. Maybe they'll produce more. Either can happen. Being objective means using the stated goal. Being conservative means cutting back on the stated goal. Being optimistic means increasing the numbers from the stated goal. I'm being objective (not trying to modify Samsung's statement).
Microsoft's minimum requirements will allow you to boot the machine, but not much else.
We can stop before we even discuss this because if the "average" PC has 128M next year (which includes Win 95/98/2000 shipments and which = 1 RIMM), then Rambus production could meet 33% of those needs (if none of it goes into the channel). Not the 6% to 7% you stated. You weren't even close. It doesn't matter what Windows 2000 requires.
However, again, I don't care what your opinions are when I can go to the source, as you could have. I'm pulling Microsoft's own data, which said that 64M is the recommended system, and that it may require less. You stated that the recommended amount was 256M as if they came right off the Microsoft page. You didn't say "In my opinion" or "To get optimum performance" or anything. That was a bald-faced misleading statement. Microsoft does not say anything at all on their web page about putting 256M into your machine.
As it is, I also have anecdotal feedback because I'm managing a line of portables for a client and we're shipping our new models with 64M as "Windows 2000 Ready" and will be shortly including a free upgrade coupon in the NT version for Windows 2000.
If rambus doesn't achieve sufficient market share near term it will become an orphan
At least we agree on that. But I don't make up numbers without letting everyone know that I made them up, or how I arrived at them. From what I can see, you at least:
- Missed the fact that the starting numbers were 2x what your stated (which you apologized for, that's cool)
- Did not include production growth throughout the year (only additional vendors starting up)
- Made up share numbers for Samsung without backing them up
- Made up W2000 memory requirements (stupid, since they're very verifiable)
Again, so many mistakes in such a short paragraph is frightening.
Dave |
