>> the costs of a single laser failure are far larger, and the advantages of
standardization for the customer are far smaller.
You are correct on the first point and incorrect on the second.<<
Katherine,
Deming must be rolling over in his grave. :-)
I can't think of a real life example where more standardization has directly lead to increased costs, reduced yields, up-time, etc.
Rather, standardization even in the so called "commodity" hardware parts leads directly to more consistent and better quality. And I doubt that anyone looks at DUV lasers as a commodity item. Yet, at least.
RE non 248nm lasers and CYMI. CYMI couldn't produce the 248nm lasers as rapidly as it could sell them. This was the high volume and rapid growth laser niche. It focused on 248nm.
That was then, this is now. Even the UTEK PGILD tool uses a non CYMI laser. I still believe that CYMI will go after the sweet spot in the laser market will high quality, value added lasers. When 193nm or 157nm lasers are in demand, CYMI will be there with the "best" product. Until they're in demand, the competitors will be forced to attempt to establish toeholds in economically unattractive areas. (short term basis)
I further believe the reason why CYMI's competitors have avoided a head to head fight, is simply because CYMI is much better. .. and that it will stay so for several years to come.
FWIW,
Ian. |
