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: Zeev Hed who wrote (77664)	3/12/2000 9:47:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Respond to of 132070

DDR is indeed vaporware for main memory, but top-end 3-D graphics cards are using it. If it's good enough for Nvidia, it'll be good enough for PCs. -mb

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (77664)	3/16/2000 9:37:00 AM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi Zeev: Been absent for a bit so just starting the long climb back through unread posts. Perhaps I do appear overly bearish about this stock, but the fundamentals appear to me to be on my side, so I'm comfortable with the stance. Right off the bat, the memory market itself has two large problems that make it tough for ANY of its participants to make serious dough,...too much capacity as well as saturation in the market that absorbs most of its output (PCs). Worse still, inventories are high and show no signs of flattening out. Memory prices are already perilously close to "cost-of-production" and they continue to fall. Then there is the fact that the 128 Mbit "crossover" will occur this year, reducing actual chip (but not bit) requirements, particularly in the absence of new PC applications that might have mandated more memory. I also note the formation of a new memory "standards" council, which includes the big five memory producers plus Intel. Reviewing their public comments to date, it is obvious that they do not think highly of RMBs type technology ("latency" is a big topic, and is painted as an "avoid" area). Intel's backing is a consequential consideration, but it sure shrinks when one looks at Intel's weakening position. Intel is not the technology leader in micros now, and is justifiably worried about "blowing it". And it's not just AMD that is a worry. I also know that many players in the box builder industry would likely reject RMBS even if it wasn't exorbitantly expensive, for fear of re-establishing Intel's ability to dominate the PC industry. This is a serious hidden negative for RMBS, but it is real. Tough to acquire penetration when both the manufacturers as well as the end users do not want it. Given this situation, it is highly unlikely that RMBS pricing will fall as quickly as, (never mind faster than) its competitors. The big volumes required to have a shot at serious price reduction don't look to be in the cards from my perspective. Then there are the tests,.....unanimously and clearly showing that RMBS takes it in the chops, even when stacked up against PC100 and PC133 Sdram chips. What will encourage end users to write larger cheques for this product? Currently, RMBS is being touted as a high end PC solution, yet it is not gaining acceptance in this role in the field. This week, I bought a new PC and it is a high end item, as a result of the various roles it must fulfill here. Price was not an important consideration, but performance and reliability were extremely important. It is the first non-Intel PC that I have ever acquired (it sports an AMD Athlon) and RMBS was considered and quickly rejected. High end products may well become low end products, but this is usually the case when those products do not have better and cheaper competition. DDR is a bit more than vaporware, it is actually shipping. The problem is chip set availability. The Taiwanese are on the verge of correcting that problem, especially Via. Very few industry participants see a role for RMBs in low end product, Intel included. Recall Iridium, of as little as 18 months ago, when it was being touted by the market as a "second coming". We maintained the view that it would never pick up enough business to regain the dough put into its development (never mind make a profit) because there was too much competition at much lower prices. Iridium quickly entered bankruptcy once its services became available to the public, based on next to nil useage. RMBS will likely suffer the same fate for similar reasons and every bit as quickly IMHO The new standards situation doesn't appear to be a RMBS camp and the stock price has built in perfection. I'll stay bearish. (g) Best, Earlie