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: docpaul who wrote (14985)	9/24/2000 2:17:01 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Doc Paul, I repeat... re: your prior post First, I guess I took the "faulty" logic and "short hyping" comments personally. Should I have interpreted these remarks differently? As is common on Internet-based discussions I was not sure of the context in which you wrote these statements and interpreted a bit of an edge on them. I pride myself on the fact that I limit my discussion of SanDisk and other flash competitors almost exclusively to this board. Most SI members who frequent the SNDK thread are well aware of other flash pure-plays like SSTI, and to a lesser extent, FLSH. I suspect many own one or two of each of these companies in some permutation or another. For some reason the SNDK board seems to receive a lot of cross traffic. We have had any number of discussions about the merits of these companies and have I thine it has been emphasized the fact that SNDK seems to have little overlap with SSTI or FLSH. Despite this most SSTI vs. SNDK discussions seem confrontational, and I have contributed to this "confrontation". I think it is crucial for SanDisk to be distinguised from other flash pure-plays. You discussion has helped to achieve this. ______________________________________________________________________________ Again, at the risk of beating a dead horse... NOR flash producers I can understand the omission of SanDisk as a major NOR manufacturer in your discussion because you were referring to the low and ultra-low density flash market (below 4Mbit) where SanDisk does not tread. I would like to make the argument that SanDisk's choice to avoid this end of the spectrum may be due to the fact that they aren't competitive on a per KB basis with competitors. I think it may be equally likely that SanDisk has not focused on this end of the flash spectrum because the feel it may soon be oversubscribed or because it is increasingly becoming a commodity market. Personally, I have a hard time with the concept that positioning oneself as a leader on the lowest end of the flash spectrum is a good long term strategy. I cannot think of many memory storage companies who have executed successfully by focusing in the least technologically advanced domain. It seems fine now that demand continues to exceed supply, but I have some doubt that profit margins will remain stable over the long haul. Increasing complexity of devices using low density flash will likely lead to a migration to higher densities. This seems a logical expectation. I am not a design engineer. I freely admit that I may have this totally wrong, but I at least offer this as a possible scenario facing SSTI in the future. Similarly, as I mentioned in the recent articles I have been able to locate, the current cost of code storage flash in embedded applications significantly impacts final product costs, much as data storage flash can be prohibitively expensive in consumer applications. A topical example of the prior may actually be Bluetooth where a single chip solution that eliminates flash memory entirely from the equation is being approached in order to get to target prices for unit shipments in the range of $5 to $10. I am not sure how something like Bluetooth can succeed if it automatically adds $20 or more to the cost of each and every device it enables. There will be cost sensitivity to code storage applications going forward. ______________________________________________________________________________ Internet connectivity I assumed your original remarks about Internet connectivity were made to show how flash memory cards could become obsolete. This argument has been made before. This is a particularly sensitive point for SNDK shareholders and I now recognize that you chose it intentionally to "push buttons". I guess the example you chose did what it was intended, then. My consistent reply to this to argument, including specific comments about from SSTI management that Bluetooth (an area that SSTI is bullish on) will make removable flash memory obsolete and creating demand for the SSTI ADC product line, is that I am not convinced this is a near-term thread to SanDisk. I recognize it as a potential threat. I repeat... I have yet to hear a compelling argument for Internet connectivity making flash memory obsolete. Any discussion first needs to begin with an assessment of feasibility. That has been totally lacking by those who have posted such arguments here previously. I personally feel Internet connectivity will significantly increase the demand for removable flash. I still don't understand how Bluetooth will factor into the demand for data storage given the limited range of this technique. Paul, you replied... Once again, the whole point of mentioning that to you was to show you how you're looking at SSTI...anyone can choose to "pump" up their stock by pointing out potential flaws in another company. I'm not looking to be a SNDK bear.. I like the company and the concept.. but you're not being fair to yourself by doing this.. I can sit and throw rocks at SNDK all day, if I really needed to, but that's not the point.. see what I'm saying? I am not trying to "pump up" SanDisk at all by making some comparison to SSTI's business model. I have already stated that it would be best for SanDisk to distance itself from other players in the flash field which don't directly compete. I am also pleased that many other flash investors seem to gravitate to the SanDisk thread for discussion. It is a healthy exercise and keeps us all on our toes. ______________________________________________________________________________ SanDisk is "unhealthy" <<It is my general impression that 3G connectivity and Bluetooth are frequently referred to by "short hypsters" who wish to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of SNDK investors.>> your reply... No offense, but for you to not have some doubt about SNDK is unhealthy...you need to be objective about stocks... Your point is well taken. Currently I have no reason to believe that SanDisk is unhealthy. Ausdauer

To: docpaul who wrote (14985)	9/25/2000 5:04:31 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Docpaul, Please allow me to help you with your misconceptions about SSTI. (grin) 1. First of all, all SST intellectual property (IP) is low technology. All Sandisk IP is high technology. It does not matter that Qualcomm selected SST Superflash because of its advantages in supporting low-power consumption and the ability to shrink feature sizes with new processes. QCOM could have done that itself, but it just did not have time. Same thing can be said for Intel, IBM, Motorola, Taiwan Semiconductor and others. Why would any of those companies want to mess with any technology growing at triple digit annual rates when many of their own core business revenues are growing at annual rates less than 25%? QCOM has 3.621 billion in ttm sales; why fool with an easily duplicated technology that will only produce another billion in sales for 2001? You need to think about such things Docpaul. 2. Second, if SST invests in another semi conductor related company, Apacer for instance, it is because that is the only way SST can get this company to consider doing business with SST. QCOM, Intel, IBM, Motorola and TSMC just forgot to require SST to purchase stock in their companies when they licensed Superflash. You should appreciate the difference between SST's investments in semi conductor related companies and Sandisk's investments in semi conductor related companies. When Sandisk invests in another semi conductor related company, it is a show of strength, not some groveling investment to assure some production space, or worse yet, an investment to get the partner to embark upon the production of some ill fated product. 3. Third, you need to understand that SST "trades away their intellectual property for production considerations" on a regular basis. Just ignore the fact that SST has both the production process and the end product patented. Soon everyone will be using Superflash technology willy nilly and SST will get nothing for it. What went wrong is that when Bing Yeh read The Gorilla Game book and saw the phrase "open proprietary technology", he thought it said "open property technology". So he just started "bartering" away SST's IP. It won't be long until SST's revenue stream comes to a screeching halt and you will be left holding the bag. I can understand why Bing's advanced degree in physics from National Taiwan University did not prevent this unfortunate mistake, but I would have thought the engineering degree from Stanford University would have at least afforded Bing some Basic English reading skills. Apparently Stanford University is lowering its entrance requirements. 4. Fourth, you really need to learn to read between the lines a little bit more. SSTI shareholders have been making a big deal about these old QCOM announcements: www2.wirelessdesignonline.com{D7E5AAD7-42CE-11D3-9A54-00A0C9C83AFB} ebnonline.com The headlined for the second article reads Qualcomm to use SST flash in CDMA chip sets. Now get real Doc. This will likely all turn out to be vaporware! QCOM was probably just trying to pump SST's stock price for some stealth reason. Every one knows Dr. J never makes straightforward announcements. QCOM may never get chips out on the market using SSTI Superflash and CDMA will probably never be widely adopted. You are being incredibly naive when you think announcements like those above portend good things for SST. All in all, you SST shareholders speculate way too much. You have to read between the lines Doc. You also need to read between the lines on announcements from other flash companies. I was going to give a few examples, but I think if you just remember that all roads lead to Sandisk, you will be perfectly fine. (grin) 5. Fifth, you have really got to stop listening to anything the SST company representatives say. Don't you realize that we determined on this thread that the SST people speak with "forked tongues"? After all, they put out a product without advertising all the components that make up the product. It is absolutely unconscionable that any company would do this! Anyway, you can get a much more objective opinion regarding SST's capabilities from Sandisk shareholders like myself, or from the CEOs of SST's competitors. Never mind that customers like Intel, QCOM, IBM and Motorola are impressed with SST's technology. What the heck do these companies with their oversized R&D budgets know anyway? 6. Finally, you really have a lot of nerve coming over here and talking about SST on this thread Docpaul. (Fierce Scowl!) I know you just thought you were just replying to a post by one of our shareholders, but think about it Doc: this shareholder had the courtesy to bury his old anti SST post down two links in two of his recent Sandisk posts, and he buried it down three links in his Thursday Gorilla thread post. Message 14431988 Certainly you didn't expect to be allowed to reply to that old post buried in all those links did you? We Sandisk shareholders have to be able to get the truth out about SST to Gorilla gamers and others without being bothered by SST shareholders like you. I hope this objective information will help you realize the error of your ill-fated SST investment Docpaul. Don't let that triple digit growth rate in earnings and revenues, nor the billion in revenues coming in CY 2001, cloud your mind. SST will never make it with its "open property low technology". Best, Huey@tongueincheek.com Long SNDK and SSTI