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 : audiocodes ltd. (AUDC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: trilobyte who wrote (109)	1/24/2001 3:29:07 AM
From: Arik T.G.	Respond to of 229

>>I believe a royalty stream was not mentioned during the AUDC CC The only mention was when they said 5% of revs in the Q came from royalty, and 95% from products. ATG

To: trilobyte who wrote (109)	1/25/2001 12:12:28 PM
From: SpecialK	Respond to of 229

39% of sales to Clarent is too high. If you are an owner of Clarent, you should own Audc, because you believe in Clarent's ability to succeed. Audc needs to diversify its customers, good for a trade, IMO.

To: trilobyte who wrote (109)	1/31/2001 2:09:30 PM
From: Taro	Respond to of 229

as far as I recall, AUDC and NMSS did not compete at Clarent last year: They provided different parts of the same system pretty much 1:1 in units. The AUDC part was just that more expensive. AUDC already had and offered the complete solution but never got a real shot at the NMSS part of the system. New seems to be, that both now compete head-to-head for the complete solution...

To: trilobyte who wrote (109)	1/31/2001 2:18:34 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 229

the in-house competition at the big OEMs is the worst competition. Who supports and encourages that at the very highest management levels there? Right again: T.I./Telogy is the answer!! And the rest of the silicon gang like BRCM/Malleable, Centillium and many others, all of which take massive investments in software developments and scrambling for codec IP. If time is money, that avenue is costly indeed. But it supports captive egos, the NIH principles and keeps many engineers busy in re-inventing the wheel as opposed to creating unique higher level systems value.