Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (47776)	8/24/1999 3:19:00 AM
From: Stefan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

If your arguments were correct then the 16Mb chips should be the biggest money makers comparing to 128 0r 64Mb. Right? Or maybe your logic is just not right.

To: Carl R. who wrote (47776)	8/24/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

carl, is graham correct Message 11047847 or are you correct?

To: Carl R. who wrote (47776)	8/24/1999 10:16:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Carl, I've just named myself head of Samsung. I've assembled our DRAM biz team. Questions: What are we doing? Why are we doing it? Who else is doing it? Who's doing it the best? Why? Can we do that or position ourselves to do that? Should we do that? Your breakdown is right on. IMHO, their people are definitely thinking along those lines. In theory (hopefully), somewhere within Samsung and NEC are people who've slaved over spreadsheets giving quantitative support for the decisions to pioneer into 128Mb. And yet, the decision-making process probably isn't that much different from the 64Mb process. Did it work? Why didn't it work? What didn't they properly factor in? What caused this miscalculation? My answer would be that the 16/64 crossover happened much further along in time than they had anticipated. One reason could be MU continuing to push the 16Mb units, which would have delayed crossover. DRAM chips aren't digitial cameras. There are no "early adaptors" that you can skim and then have prices follow your cost curve down. Somewhere out there are technophiles who will pony up $700-800+ to have that camera just because it's a cool thing to have. Could you imagine a buyer for DELL spending $X more for a 64Mb unit before crossover and then showing it to his boss and going "this is so cool"? No. It didn't happen. It's a commodity product and their are readily available substitutes that get you to the same place cheaper. The "fly in the ointment" are the players who continue to push the envelope on those cheaper substitutes. Will this happen again w/ the 64/128? Or putting myself back at the head of Samsung... What have we ourselves done different to insure this won't happen again? What's different about our expectations re: competitors? Good trading, Tom

To: Carl R. who wrote (47776)	8/24/1999 11:29:00 AM
From: Ed Beers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Carl, A 128 mb die is not 2x a 64 mb die. There is some overhead for boarders, bond pads, and all of the support circuitry. Only the RAM array itself is duplicated. The 128 mb part is probably 90 to 95% of the size of two 64 mb parts. A lower yield is not significant IF the yields of both parts were already very high. If you can save $0.50 on package and test, that is very significant in this market. For rambus the overhead is higher so the argument is more compelling yet.