Dan,
Just read Carl's posts carefully, then concur or disagree, but don't get all hung up on who he is.
You've missed the point. On the one hand, I have Dataquest analysts who travel the world talking to memory manufacturers, systems designers, et cetera who say that RDRAM will be 75% of the market. On the other hand, we have Carl who says there are no new design wins and that it's dead-dead-dead.
The whole point is to try to give him a chance to establish his credibility with respect to the opinions he shares with the thread vis-a-vis the credibility of two gentlemen who have differing opinions. To do so, I want to know how connected he is in the industry -- does he meet with industry leaders at conferences, does he publish his research and have a number of people who pay him significant amounts of money for his opinions, is he respected enough in the industry to have his ideas published or patented. Or is he sitting in a little room in Seattle pontificating away. These first things are all things that Jim Handy and George Iwanyc at Dataquest do, and it makes their opinions and viewpoints of the market much, much more valuable than Carl's as things stand now. If Carl has this level of connectivity to the industry, I'd be happy to accord him the credibility associated with it.
Based on the feedback Handy and Iwanyc have received from the market, they project a 75% to 80% share of the market for RDRAM in a couple of years and niche status for DDR. This implies, for example, that Rambus will continue to have design wins. Since Carl disputes this statement, I'd like to know who he has spoken with to build this opinion. Does he meet with developer's in Silicon Valley? In New York? In Korea? The other gentlemen do, and include the feedback of these meetings in their estimates.
Unless Carl can show that he does have this kind of credibility, his opinions are meaningless in this area. Just the fact that he won't tell us the basics about himself, even simple stuff such as the college he attended, is telling in itself. What does he have to hide? In terms of weighing his feedback against recognized, connected industry analysts, so far his credibility is coming up short and his statements appear to be based on nothing more than the thoughts in his head -- certainly they don't seem to be based on any serious contact with the major players in the industry.
If you'd had even the most basic of physics and chemistry classes you'd be able to follow Carl's discussion. There is no "credibility" issue. This is science, engineering and reason - not who's who.
MIT required quite a bit of physics and chemistry. But you're wrong -- it's not about science, engineering, and reason (see my previous post to Ali about short-sighted engineers). It's about business and who's doing what behind the scenes. This is the stuff the Dataquest analysts get told in private meetings (having had these types of meetings with them myself). Carl does not appear to have any source in this area.
When Kennan wrote "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", he signed it "X" and let his arguments prove his point, not his name.
Who knows if "Carl Bilow" is his real name? Carl can argue all he wants, but when he makes statements like "no new design wins" and "dead-dead-dead", we have to understand what his sources are. Especially when we have well-connected analysts who dispute that.
Dave |
