SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Zeev Hed who wrote (64240)1/12/2001 10:23:18 AM
From: gnuman  Respond to of 93625
 
Zeev, re: DRAM Revenues.

From what I've read, I think you're correct that CYQ3 revenues were higher. ASP'S seemed to peak last quarter. Going out of 2000 ASP's were <50% of Q3 peak.

The industry talks in terms of "bit's shipped" or "equivalent 64Mb" devices.
YOY "bits shipped" approximately doubled from 1999. According to the SIA, this will result in ~50% growth in revenues YOY.

The industry forecasts I've seen call for ~50% bit growth in 2001.

Bit growth and revenue growth are somewhat unrelated in that bit's per device double periodically, while device pricing typically falls into a range. It's possible we may see 50% bit growth and declining revenues in 2001. "Moores Law" in operation.

JMHO's



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64240)1/12/2001 10:37:46 AM
From: gnuman  Respond to of 93625
 
Zeev, re: DRAM Revenues.

From what I've read, I think you're correct that CYQ3 revenues were higher. ASP'S seemed to peak in Q3. Going out of 2000 ASP's were <50% of Q3 peak.

The industry talks in terms of "bit's shipped" or "equivalent 64Mb" devices.
YOY "bits shipped" approximately doubled from 1999. According to the SIA, this will result in ~50% growth in revenues YOY.

The industry forecasts I've seen call for ~50% bit growth in 2001.

Bit growth and revenue growth are somewhat unrelated in that bit's per device double periodically, while device pricing typically falls into a range. It's possible we may see 50% bit growth and declining revenues in 2001. "Moores Law" in operation.

JMHO's



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64240)1/12/2001 10:38:54 AM
From: gnuman  Respond to of 93625
 
Zeev, re: DRAM Revenues. (edit)

From what I've read, I think you're correct that CYQ3 revenues were higher. ASP'S seemed to peak in Q3. Going out of 2000 ASP's were <50% of Q3 peak.

The industry talks in terms of "bit's shipped" or "equivalent 64Mb" devices.
YOY "bits shipped" approximately doubled from 1999. According to the SIA, this will result in ~50% growth in revenues YOY.

The industry forecasts I've seen call for ~50% bit growth in 2001.

Bit growth and revenue growth are somewhat unrelated in that bit's per device double periodically, while device pricing typically falls into a range. It's possible we may see 50% bit growth and declining revenues in 2001. "Moores Law" in operation.

JMHO's



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64240)1/12/2001 10:42:24 AM
From: gnuman  Respond to of 93625
 
deleted



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64240)1/12/2001 10:43:43 AM
From: gnuman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
deleted SI server acting crazy this AM <G>



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64240)1/12/2001 11:21:57 AM
From: wily  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
zeev,

I don't see the need for estimating royalty percentage.

If this quarter's royalty numbers are based on peak memory ASP's, then flat royalties next quarter, based on lower ASP's, reflects more licensees. An optimistic estimate would assume that next quarter's royalty numbers are based on 40% of DRAM makers signed up, and ASP's at 50% of peak.

Looking at it this way, my multiplication factors are valid:

Multiply by 4 to get yearly number.
Multiply by 2.5 for when the others sign up.
Multiply by 2 for higher DRAM prices (optimal, non-sustainable scenario)
Multiply by 1.3 for when DDR is a bigger percentage (higher rate, supposedly).

This method automatically includes chipset royalties and variations in royalty rate between the different memories.

wily
Message 15168425