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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thecalculator who wrote (13400)	7/29/2000 2:19:58 AM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 60323

Removable vs. Embedded Storage Calculator, Perhaps we should consult with a design engineer on some of the points we disagree on. This is not an area of expertise for me and I am speaking strictly from a consumer's point of view. My position remains as follows... PC vs. mobile device I am basing my comments about removable, non-volatile storage on applications in mobile devices, not PC's. You store your data on the hard drive of your PC because that is the way the PC is designed. It is convenient for you. You may elect, as many do, to back up your data on a removable tape or Zip or CD. This is not a foreign concept to most PC users. Digital cameras are designed the other way around. Images start out on the removable media and move to the PC and then to a back up system. In both instances the removable media serve as a portable "digital currency". Similar arrangements are also found in other portable consumer devices. The argument for embedded flash is best defended for relatively fixed devices like thin clients, set top boxes and household Internet appliances like I-opener and others. These are inherently more "PC-like" in their design. USB, Bluetooth, Firewire... The scenario for embedded storage, whether coupled with a dedicated USB connection on the host device or via a Bluetooth connection, must include a convenient mechanism for data transfer to a PC. Do you think it is more convenient to hook a camera to a PC each time it is used and data is dumped, or to hook a card reader once and then transfer data via the memory card? The convenience factor needs to be considered. I am not saying either mechanism is fool proof. Many new cameras have both USB and removable memory functionality which allow the end-user to decide. Very few digital cameras are opting for the embedded storage/USB combination. Thus, if embedded solutions are to become commonplace the design architecture adopted by the OEM's needs to change. Quite frankly, I am not sure what will influence that change. Cost & Design Considerations I am also not sure of the statement that ultra-high density flash in an embedded form has any of the cost, design or speed advantages over flash cards that you speak of. If you look at component cost & component availability I think you will see that the removable feature of ultra-high density flash is a big advantage to OEM's. It allows faster design implementation by eliminating yet another embedded component from the assembly line, thus circumventing possible part shortages (see my Sony post from tonight). Flash cards also greatly reduce consumer costs by allowing a one time investment that follow the consumer from device to device. And although an empty slot on the circuit board takes up space, it also allows for added modular functionality, as is the case for CF. I believe a similar story will unfold for the MMC/SDMC slot. Finally, I agree that if space considerations were a critically important then embedded flash may have a distinct advantage. Currently these considerations are not center stage for the digital camera and MP3 markets. It becomes more of an issue for PDA's and cell phones. Flash Supply A growing need for flash, whether embedded or removable, is good for SanDisk because of their fundamental patents. Also, they are a leading manufacturer of ultra-high density flash. These represent significant barriers to entry for would-be competitors. I think the fact that the SSTI ADC uses off-the-shelf ultra-high density NAND flash (as does FLSH's DOC) indicates SanDisk's advantageous position. Should SanDisk see their flash card business eroded by embedded applications they could easily migrate to embedded products. They have all of the pieces of the puzzle available to them and could easily position themselves as a low cost producer. Right now I am not in the position to second guess SNDK management. I think if there was a play in embedded applications that they would have a much bigger presence in that market. Detective Work I wanted to inquire whether you believe that embedded flash chips utilizing ATA standards for hard disk drive emulation fall under SanDisk's IP. I am not certain of the answer to this question, but feel it is an important piece of information. For example, FLSH uses a proprietary file system that apparently was designed around SanDisk's patent portfolio. This may place more responsibility on the intelligence of the host device. Will the same be true for other like products? I mention this only as a point of discussion. I have been accused recently of making assertions that were not substantiated by fact. For example, I stated recently that I felt it was "inconceivable" that SSTI could manufacture all components of their recently announced ADC product line and tried to support that argument with logic and with statements from the last two c.c.'s by SSTI's CEO. I went to great lengths to learn first hand from the company about the origin of component parts and corroborated my suspicions. I was called to the carpet on this issue and when the information was finally available the poster on this thread who took great liberties in attacking me and my credibility has not even retracted his accusations or tempered his rhetoric. That is very disconcerting. Have a great weekend. Ausdauer I am willing to take Ausdauer