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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave B who wrote (41563)	5/7/2000 11:50:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, you are entrapping yourself with this. Look: <Seriously, these two gentlemen have much more visibility into..they're basing their estimates on information that is not available to us (even Carl!).> Ask yourself at what level they have this "visibility"? At executive and marketing level. These guys think wishfully, you should know this in first place. These guys have very little understanding about inherent caveats of the underlying technology. The whole thing with those high-speed signals is totally new to them, they cannot have any practical experience with the new technology by definition and cannot exercise good judgement about those technical issues. Their wishful thinking and plans may be totally unrealistic, and that is happening. As several people on this thread including Carl and myself have shown, none of the promises of RAMBUS "technology" withstand the reality check. None. The Rambus "technology" brings no benefits but only complications at every production step. It is my belief that the industry cannot be built on unsound technology no matter how wishful the thinking of Rambus and Intel leaders is. This is the only point I would like to make. BTW, about cost reductions: since the Rambus "technology" associates extra cost at EVERY STEP OF PRODUCTION and DEPLOYMENT as compared to SDRAM/DDRAM, it will always cost SIGNIFICANTLY more. No matter which measures are undertaken. This is a very simple concept, would you agree? - Ali

To: Dave B who wrote (41563)	5/7/2000 11:50:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Respond to of 93625

Dave, you are entrapping yourself with this. Look: <Seriously, these two gentlemen have much more visibility into..they're basing their estimates on information that is not available to us (even Carl!).> Ask yourself at what level they have this "visibility"? At executive and marketing level. These guys think wishfully, you should know this in first place. These guys have very little understanding about inherent caveats of the underlying technology. The whole thing with those high-speed signals is totally new to them, they cannot have any practical experience with the new technology by definition and cannot exercise good judgement about those technical issues. Their wishful thinking and plans may be totally unrealistic, and that is happening. As several people on this thread including Carl and myself have shown, none of the promises of RAMBUS "technology" withstand the reality check. None. The Rambus "technology" brings no benefits but only complications at every production step. It is my belief that the industry cannot be built on unsound technology no matter how wishful the thinking of Rambus and Intel leaders is. This is the only point I would like to make. BTW, about cost reductions: since the Rambus "technology" associates extra cost at EVERY STEP OF PRODUCTION and DEPLOYMENT as compared to SDRAM/DDRAM, it will always cost SIGNIFICANTLY more. No matter which measures are undertaken. This is a very simple concept, would you agree? - Ali

To: Dave B who wrote (41563)	5/7/2000 11:50:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, you are entrapping yourself with this. Look: <Seriously, these two gentlemen have much more visibility into..they're basing their estimates on information that is not available to us (even Carl!).> Ask yourself at what level they have this "visivility"? At executive and marketing level. These guys think wishfully, you should know this in first place. These guys have very little understanding about inherent caveats of the underlying technology. The whole thing with those high-speed signals is totally new to them, they cannot have any practical experience with the new technology by definition and cannot exercise good judgement about those technical issues. Their wishful thinking and plans may be totally unrealistic, and that is happening. As several people on this thread including Carl and myself have shown, none of the promises of RAMBUS "technology" withstand the reality check. None. The Rambus "technology" brings no benefits but only complications at every production step. It is my belief that the industry cannot be built on unsound technology no matter how wishful the thinking of Rambus and Intel leaders is. This is the only point I would like to make. BTW, about cost reductions: since the Rambus "technology" associates extra cost at EVERY STEP OF PRODUCTION and DEPLOYMENT as compared to SDRAM/DDRAM, it will always cost SIGNIFICANTLY more. No matter which measures are undertaken. This is a very simple concept, would you agree? - Ali

To: Dave B who wrote (41563)	5/8/2000 12:38:00 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Today's posts have been interesting, if a little on the salty side. But from what I gather there are in fact two clearly defined views on this thread. We have those who are here because INTC is here. And we have those who want more justification than this high profile association. It seems to me that both views have something to say for themselves. Neither approach should be ignored. But the clash between the two seems to beg for an answer to the question of what INTC would do if it, for whatever reason, has to step away from RMBS in the next 6 months. From my "Pop" perspective it would seem to me that it would be the biggest threat INTC has ever had. Bigger than Beta v. VHS. It would seem to threaten INTC's control of the chip business as well as even bigger market share losses to AMD. If INTC truly believes RMBS technology is not D-D-D, why wouldn't it, either directly or through RMBS itself, buy up all the DRDRAM capacity it wants. They certainly have the money. What is more important to INTC? Its ability to maintain and expand its control of chip and CPU markets, or RMBS' royalties and RMBS profitability? I don't know what INTC has already spent on RMBS, but aside from the payments to fabs and the original warrant purchase lets say they spent a billion, without considering any equity they received from the fabs as part of the deal. It seems to me that if INTC truly believes that RMBS is the future of memory design, the side benefit to them of shutting out AMD, VIA, MU, et al., from the "bus" would seem to make shelling out another Billion or even more if needed in order to buy DRDRAM wafer starts and thus drive down the cost of DRDRAM, well worth the price. I mean, it wouldn't be money down the rat hole. They would in fact be able to resale the product. Presumably the resales would earn a worth while price since presumably the market will support this amazingly improved memory system. So the question is, why aren't they doing that? Or will they start doing it sometime in the next 6 months if it isn't already too late? Could it be that Carl is in the end correct? Have the anti RMBS factions inside INTC won the war? Have they lost faith in the ability of the bus to deliver as promised? If not, then I don't see much of an alternative for INTC. The fabs are going to produce that which provides them the most profit. If INTC believes the DRDRAM works and that the market needs and will pay for what it, they will buy the DRDRAM, and build the chips, MBs, and PCs to fill that demand. The price for DDR DRAM will fall through the floor because no one will want it, and INTC will have the control over the direction of the PC systems that they seem to want. So I ask why is INTC not buying DRDRAM wafer starts?