<Fujitsu has had their expensive alternative for awhile. INVX and presumably RDRT have spent very little money to offer flex but also don't have much success to show for their efforts.>
I think the question of what Fujitsu spends on a CAPS interconnect is probably very hard to determine, but 2 years ago they were said to cost a little over $3. If there was any truth to that, it's may well have cost much less than TSA at the same time. Now, assuming Fujitsu has learned how to make them for less money in 2 years, I'd say that CAPS must be pretty competitive.
At Diskcon, people at Magnecomp said they had plans and an agreement to build a facility in China to make CAPS. They said they could make the product for less money than TSA because the processes are easier. TSA and CAPS seems to be physically nearly the same elements, but CAPS is based on adding the circuits to the polyimid where as TSA etches the circuit from a layer of metal leaving a pattern on the polyimid.
I should think sputtering is a pretty well established technology. I was told it could work to finer tolerances.
So, the argument against the flex circuit, (Innovex, 3M, and RDRT) is that it has to be bonded to the flexure and that's adding cost and an unreliable element to the process. Hence the apples and oranges comparison. Innovex has a prebonding solution now, but it is late. Can they win back some customers with prebonding, or is there a greater technical issue with electrical qualities? I understand while Seagate has had good success with the Cheetah drive, but Seagate isn't interested in promoting this technology to other companies. Hmmm... A cost advantage Seagate doesn't want to share?
Anyway, TSA is cool. They all want it. Hutch was a big disappointment by not getting it out sooner. Maybe that's changed and they have started to get better production and yields, at least they have made some comments that suggest so. But, as with all these things, time to market gives the leader the best profit and greater market share. Hutch has blown their lead and lost the most profitable period. Competition is looming and they will bring down TSA margins. If Hutch had been 6 months sooner to market, imagine the advantage. In fact, I think missing this window has left them struggling to pay off their bet.
Anyway, I think the Hutchinson/TSA story is a good one, but not good enough to make me buy. Rosy predictions on futures are big gambles in this industry as we have seen time and time again. Patience will probably provide a better buying point. There are too many better investments with established companies with greater growth and lower PE's.
The fact that Hutch traded down to the low teen's 3 months ago was not because the market was stupid. Hutch was a weak hand in a bad market. Any change in the market emotion will hit Hutch hard. That makes it more risky than its reward would seem to hold, IMO.
Also, as I've said many times before, I'm not an engineer, but I find it hard to believe that disk drive failure is due too not having TSA. This seems to be a great stretch of the imagination. I'd like to see some proof.
Regards,
Mark |
