Heya Aus.. :)
<<First, I guess I took the "faulty" logic and "short hyping" comments personally. Should I have interpreted these remarks differently?>>
Well, the "short hyping" comment was certainly not directed towards you.. that is unless you are a SSTI "short hypster"? :) I still believe your logic was errant, but you shouldn't take it personally.. people tell me I'm wrong all the time.. are you beyond that?
<<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.>>
I tried to season my post to you with lots of smilies and nice words.. shrug, and yet you continue to be abrasive and bordering on impersonal.. is it impossible to have a civil discussion? You're already entering the ring with your gloves on, and there's no opponent, or audience for that matter! I'm not an enemy, and you've taken a lot of what I've said in a mean spirit.. I apologize if what I said was offensive. Just b/c I disagree with your comments, doesn't make me an enemy. :)
To be totally honest with you, I had no reason to even come onto this message base, but I tend to "feel the pulse" of the stocks I invest in by coming onto SI and doing a full text search for my symbols.. when I was searching for SSTI, I came upon your messages, and felt compelled to respond.. shrug. Certainly not looking to have a pissing match here.. hehe
<<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.>>
Fair enough there! Let's focus on truth, and learning about good investments.. :) I will say for the third time now, I think SNDK is an excellent investment.. I don't know how vanilla I can be when I say this.. I refuse to compare the companies, b/c they are not comprable..
<<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.>>
It's clearly been shown, that NO ONE is competitive on a KBit basis with SSTI's Superflash.. that's the whole point.. go read the patents yourself, and this makes sense.. also remember what I've said about Intel's agreement with SSTI in my previous messages.. SNDK is focusing on their patent strengths, and that makes good sense to me at least.. why try to climb an uphill battle and compete with better technology? Shrug..
<<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.>>
Yes, I believe that the statistics have classically shown that the low density flash demand is cyclical.. but I will say this.. in this cycle, a few different things have happened.. traditional large producers of low density NOR have set their sights towards higher densities, and the demand is much broader and has a much wider scope in consumer electronics devices.. as I mentioned before, they are sold out through mid-next year.. with volume purchasing agreements in place. Much more importantly, however.. selling small pieces of NOR is becoming more and more obsolete with the development of SoC and embedded products.. the commodity nature you speak of is removed when a company like SSTI makes custom solutions with technology licensees using small bits of NOR on a die with a processor, SRAM, or whatever.. low density flash will continue to thrive, but it will be embedded on a chip instead. Just to refresh your memory, 50% of their revenues next year will be embedded products.
<<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.>>
As I tried to explain before, this is where you and many others have missed the boat in understanding SSTI's strategy.. they have the capability whenever to advance memory sizes as the sweet spot advances.. you do understand that the densities are limited only by die size? IE, 0.18 micron = 16Mbit.. one of their licensees, TSMC has recently announced they are fully 0.13 micron capable (the first I might add).. so that's 64 Mbit at their disposal which certainly is more than enough for code storage applications at this point in time. There is nothing "low tech" about Superflash.. it's considered the most inexpensive and advanced NOR technology available.. period.
links:
ssti.com
tsmc.com
siliconinvestor.com
"Built to TSMC's industry-leading standards for quality and reliability, the 0.13-micron process provides a 72 percent shrink versus TSMC's popular 0.18-micron technology, enabling more logic density per square millimeter for system-level integration with the highest possible performance. The process supports all TSMC technology offerings, including logic, embedded flash, embedded DRAM, and mixed signal technologies."
---
<<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.>>
Without a doubt, flash isn't free.. :) Your argument is a good one, but realize that losing the flash memory also loses the ability to upgrade the code.. in some applications, that might prove to be appropriate, but the reason flash is used, is so that the firmware can be updated.. What I will say though, is that SSTI's process is chosen more often b/c it's more cost efficient as compared to others.
<<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.>>
Absolutely not, Aus.. the point was that it's easy to take pot shots at SNDK just as it is SSTI.. it's all relative, no company's plans are bulletproof.. ever read a 10-Q before? :) I'm surprised anyone invests in a company after reading one of those.. hehe. I do not think that flash cards will be made obsolete anytime soon, b/c I believe to look at that market as the glass half full, not half empty.. but for you to say SNDK is a better investment b/c SSTI has this or that potential problem, or that potential problem.. is inherently faulty.. b/c I could point the same finger at SNDK or any other company for that matter.
<<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.>>
Whoever said SNDK was unhealthy? :D I said your propensity for tunnel vision was.. give your investments a real once over and be confident enough in it to be a devil's advocate.. shrug.
I'm continuing to make a real effort to be friendly and have a civil discussion with you, but if this is unwelcomed, I'll just discontinue the conversation and people can ask me questions in private. :) I think it'd be silly to allow things to escalate to that point, however.. once again, shake? :)
all the best, docpaul |
