Hi Cary,
Thanks for the reply.
It's interesting that you say one might consider smoothing past data "heuristically". I have data that goes back to 1974 and am considering your idea.
I recall the discussion on the "Blood in the Streets Thread" of several years past when you suggested it be centered on the delivery of "....critical comments based on empirical data!" Maybe I am wrong but what you are suggesting today strikes me as a very different type of analysis - almost subjective.....
In the day-to-day scramble for anyway to make money I see the message of slower growth hitting home. The semiconductor industry, in my view, is wrestling with the *fact* that there are many, many ways to improve the performance and profitability of a factory without a move to 300mm wafers and smaller features. A great deal of this improvement, believe it or not, is coming from the implementation of manufacturing practices that have been used for many years in the automobile and aviation industries. I think I mentioned this on the other thread so I won't waste time repeating it here.
This may be a bit off the subject but I am reminded of a panel discussion at ISS last year. That panel featured several chip equipment executives and the futurist Paul Saffo. Paul is giving a speech at this year's session called "The Future of Technology". This topic is very similar to the topic that the panel was supposed to address last year. Unfortunately, last year's panel never really got off the ground as the chip equipment execs made it very clear that the only thing they were focused on was keeping their heads down during this cycle and the production of smaller features on larger wafers. I realize this is their core competency but every once in a while, maybe as the data I have presented suggests, you have to pick your head up to see the what's happening around you. This is especially true if you are losing money!
To make a long story short, I was a bit set back by the tunnel vision. 30+ years of doing the same thing over and over has apparently narrowed the focus to such a degree that even talking about future applications is too much to handle. I suppose Paul could have asked them questions about the future of the manufacturing facility but I gather that he is more of an end market visionary so "futuristic manufacturing techniques" might be a little bit of a stretch for his realm.
I am not sure what the "pundits" would do, so I presented one conjecture.
With some of the pundits, I know I am clueless as to how they arrive at their conclusions. I hope I have been clear with what I am saying. I am certainly willing to give each view consideration.
I don't expect AMAT to get to $20B from lithography or from KLAC's market share. I expect market share gains in current markets and a continuous move into new markets.
I am sure many investors, including myself, would like to understand more about the markets where they will gain share and the new markets they will enter.
Regards,
Carl |
