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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earlie who wrote (76579)	2/25/2000 5:41:00 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

To Steve Lee from Earlie: Glad to have you join us on this (at times) somewhat bearish thread, as both the bulls and the bears gain from a thorough airing of the alternative views. Of course, the discussion can get a bit "chippy" (lousy pun) but it's still well worth the effort. A few comments on RMBS: - To date, demand for RMBS products has been almost negligible. Samsung has been shipping product for months, and is able to ship much more than is required by the current market demand. This is a simple fact. -Some motherboard companies have already announced that they have given up on RMBS, and will not produce compatible boards. These guys are not uninformed. - So far, Intel has spent close to $1.0 billion trying to entice memory producers to become involved with this technology. A few questions, and some possible answers: - If it's so good, why does Intel have to spend a king's ransom to get producers to even sniff at it? Perhaps, because the companies that are the most knowledgeable about the technology know that it: addresses a tiny market at best, is remarkably difficult to build and is even more difficult to test consumes inordinate power (and runs hot,... needs its own fan on the motherboard) is NOT faster than DDR (and the test show this) - Why has Intel devoted so much time and money in a (so far) useless effort to birth this technology? Perhaps because Intel is trying to re-establish a monopoly situation after having watched in a stupor as AMD pulled off the largest market share heist in history. - Why has Intel not simply admitted that RMBS was a mistake? Perhaps it has a very large quantity of RMBS stock to dump, thus recouping at least some of the dough it has tossed down the hole on this company. On a couple of your points. - There is one heck of a big gulf (for some companies) between announcing a coming product and then producing and selling it. In the last two years, Intel has performed poorly (miserably) with respect to bringing announced products to market. For this reason, and as a result of having some awareness of Intel's current problems with yield at 18 micron line width, (which the market assumed Intel had mastered last summer), I think one should examine their "road map" product announcements with a barrel of salt at hand. Intel has experienced problems supplying even the relatively weak current demand for high end micros (which of course allows AMD's Athlons to gallop in and once again clean house). How the heck can one expect them to magically find the ability to deliver the 1.5 gbit "lab rats" that they displayed at the recent conference? - The memory producers who have taken Intel cheques have to be seen to be doing something (to avoid suits), so there has been an appropriate flurry of announcements. Don't hold your breath waiting for the product releases. - Your comment that "the whole industry knows that the future is RMBS" doesn't square with that same industry's actions which suggest just the opposite. Best, Earlie

To: Earlie who wrote (76579)	2/25/2000 6:54:00 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Earlie, The damage in this market is being concealed to some degree by the insanity on the Nasdaq. It's just a matter of time though. I've listened to Al.com carefully. For the first time he seems to really understand the bear case and the credit, financial asset, savings, and current account imbalances and how they all fit together. I think he really wants to slow things down, but we won't know for sure until they turn up the political heat or a Wall St. firm loses more than a $1.50 trading. (g) Wayne