C-Cube Message Board - Msg: 5255710

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : C-Cube

CUBE 36.52

+0.3%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: William T. Katz who wrote (34525)	7/20/1998 6:26:00 PM
From: BillyG	Read Replies (2) of 50808

If the differing proposals could be implemented with only a microcode change, I don't know this for sure -- however, a lot of the microcode will be the same because it has to be backward compatible with VCD. why didn't CUBE simply join in the larger Consortium proposal? Remember that the consortium members are CUBE competitors in China, where CUBE has the dominant market share. The consortium members also control a lot of patents, and perhaps they gave the Chinese government and people a "deal" such as low or no royalties in exchange for receiving the Chinese govt seal of approval. I don't know the facts of the deal, or even if there was one. If they can't make the changes easily, I would imagine it would cut deeply into projected CVD sales because why would a Chinese consumer pay for a chip standard different than the one that is being mandated by the Chinese govt? CUBE will drive the market where it can, and it will follow the market where it must. I'd really like to hear from someone who knows what the different standards entail and how difficult it would be to bring that up on exisiting CUBE chips. I would too.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next