Doc Paul, I repeat...
re: your prior post
First, I guess I took the "faulty" logic and "short hyping" comments personally. Should I have interpreted these remarks differently? As is common on Internet-based discussions I was not sure of the context in which you wrote these statements and interpreted a bit of an edge on them. I pride myself on the fact that I limit my discussion of SanDisk and other flash competitors almost exclusively to this board.
Most SI members who frequent the SNDK thread are well aware of other flash pure-plays like SSTI, and to a lesser extent, FLSH. I suspect many own one or two of each of these companies in some permutation or another. For some reason the SNDK board seems to receive a lot of cross traffic. We have had any number of discussions about the merits of these companies and have I thine it has been emphasized the fact that SNDK seems to have little overlap with SSTI or FLSH. Despite this most SSTI vs. SNDK discussions seem confrontational, and I have contributed to this "confrontation". I think it is crucial for SanDisk to be distinguised from other flash pure-plays. You discussion has helped to achieve this.
______________________________________________________________________________
Again, at the risk of beating a dead horse...
NOR flash producers
I can understand the omission of SanDisk as a major NOR manufacturer in your discussion because you were referring to the low and ultra-low density flash market (below 4Mbit) where SanDisk does not tread. I would like to make the argument that SanDisk's choice to avoid this end of the spectrum may be due to the fact that they aren't competitive on a per KB basis with competitors. I think it may be equally likely that SanDisk has not focused on this end of the flash spectrum because the feel it may soon be oversubscribed or because it is increasingly becoming a commodity market.
Personally, I have a hard time with the concept that positioning oneself as a leader on the lowest end of the flash spectrum is a good long term strategy. I cannot think of many memory storage companies who have executed successfully by focusing in the least technologically advanced domain. It seems fine now that demand continues to exceed supply, but I have some doubt that profit margins will remain stable over the long haul. Increasing complexity of devices using low density flash will likely lead to a migration to higher densities. This seems a logical expectation.
I am not a design engineer. I freely admit that I may have this totally wrong, but I at least offer this as a possible scenario facing SSTI in the future.
Similarly, as I mentioned in the recent articles I have been able to locate, the current cost of code storage flash in embedded applications significantly impacts final product costs, much as data storage flash can be prohibitively expensive in consumer applications. A topical example of the prior may actually be Bluetooth where a single chip solution that eliminates flash memory entirely from the equation is being approached in order to get to target prices for unit shipments in the range of $5 to $10. I am not sure how something like Bluetooth can succeed if it automatically adds $20 or more to the cost of each and every device it enables.
There will be cost sensitivity to code storage applications going forward.
______________________________________________________________________________
Internet connectivity
I assumed your original remarks about Internet connectivity were made to show how flash memory cards could become obsolete. This argument has been made before. This is a particularly sensitive point for SNDK shareholders and I now recognize that you chose it intentionally to "push buttons". I guess the example you chose did what it was intended, then.
My consistent reply to this to argument, including specific comments about from SSTI management that Bluetooth (an area that SSTI is bullish on) will make removable flash memory obsolete and creating demand for the SSTI ADC product line, is that I am not convinced this is a near-term thread to SanDisk. I recognize it as a potential threat.
I repeat...
I have yet to hear a compelling argument for Internet connectivity making flash memory obsolete. Any discussion first needs to begin with an assessment of feasibility. That has been totally lacking by those who have posted such arguments here previously. I personally feel Internet connectivity will significantly increase the demand for removable flash. I still don't understand how Bluetooth will factor into the demand for data storage given the limited range of this technique.
Paul, you replied...
Once again, the whole point of mentioning that to you was to show you how you're looking at SSTI...anyone can choose to "pump" up their stock by pointing out potential flaws in another company. I'm not looking to be a SNDK bear.. I like the company and the concept.. but you're not being fair to yourself by doing this.. I can sit and throw rocks at SNDK all day, if I really needed to, but that's not the point.. see what I'm saying?
I am not trying to "pump up" SanDisk at all by making some comparison to SSTI's business model. I have already stated that it would be best for SanDisk to distance itself from other players in the flash field which don't directly compete. I am also pleased that many other flash investors seem to gravitate to the SanDisk thread for discussion. It is a healthy exercise and keeps us all on our toes.
______________________________________________________________________________
SanDisk is "unhealthy"
<<It is my general impression that 3G connectivity and Bluetooth are frequently referred to by "short hypsters" who wish to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of SNDK investors.>>
your reply...
No offense, but for you to not have some doubt about SNDK is unhealthy...you need to be objective about stocks...
Your point is well taken. Currently I have no reason to believe that SanDisk is unhealthy.
Ausdauer |
