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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EnricoPalazzo who wrote (42051)	4/21/2001 3:20:47 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>> For this reason, I don't call them a Gorilla. I call them a Leech. A new creature for our jungle? It might be useful if you'd provide historical or anecdotal information to help us understand your proposed model better. I would have thought Rambus a Chimp if not a Gorilla, but that's probably because I was unfamiliar with the aquatic annelid worm metaphor <gg>. uf

To: EnricoPalazzo who wrote (42051)	4/22/2001 12:36:09 AM
From: tinkershaw	Respond to of 54805

The problem is, RMBS can suck a lot of profit out of the DRAM industry, but I don't see how they can prevent a new, better standard from taking hold N years down the road (say 10). I think the next next memory standard will win because of technological superiority, not because of backwards compatibility--just as RDRAM looks to beat DDR-SDRAM, which is more compatible with the current dominant standard (SDRAM). I love it the way so many people phrase it that RMBS CAP is ONLY 10 years or so. Can't say that about many other gorilla candidates with such certainty. But, in regard to switching costs. RDRAM is the next standard because Intel, and the industry, but Intel is out in front of the curve, saw that DRAM was creating a bottleneck. The fly in the ointment. RDRAM provided the best, most scaleable technology to fix this problem. Because this problem exists, and its a very painful problem, the industry has willingly or otherwise, invested in enormous sums of capital to be able to produce RDRAM. We are talking billions of dollars and learning curves where yields start off pitiful and work their way to acceptable and then great. 5-10 years from now, when the time for the next standard comes, assuming the Rambus Quad technology does not fill that role, it will take a technology which is at least as much better than the RDRAM product as RDRAM is to SDRAM. It will also take a bully Gorilla advocate to push such a technology on the industry, for a new standard to make it to market in a massive way. I predict, and its not a very difficult prediction, that by the time RDRAM starts becoming the bottleneck as SDRAM is today, that the industry will fight as hard any change from RDRAM to the new standard as it has fought the change from SDRAM to the new standard. It will do so because by that time in the future RDRAM will have become so second nature ot produce and the DRAMs will have so much invested in its production, that moving to a new standard will be tremendously painful. Just as the transition to RDRAM has been. In addition, the industries alternative to RDRAM in five years is DDR-II. Unfortunately for DDR-II, the performance requirements they are predicting for it, are already inferior to what Rambus is demonstrating, and I believe (although I'd have to check this one to be certain) but also inferior to what top of the line RDRAM in mass production today is capable of doing. Doesn't bode well for this proposed substitute for RDRAM. But 5-10 years is a long ways away. Perhaps something new will come along. But, as the game teaches us, its not something to worry about until you see actually gaining acceptance in the market. At this point its hardly even someone's vision. Tinker

To: EnricoPalazzo who wrote (42051)	4/22/2001 9:13:36 AM
From: Apollo	Respond to of 54805

Rambus... But I do not think that RMBS is a Gorilla in the making. From my perspective, RMBS has a very profitable position in an open proprietary architecture, but they don't have control over it (even though they invented it!)........................The problem is, RMBS can suck a lot of profit out of the DRAM industry, but I don't see how they can prevent a new, better standard from taking hold N years down the road (say 10). I think the next next memory standard will win because of technological superiority. Ethan, it's always nice to hear from you young'ins, when you're not playing in the sandbox. <g> Nothing can ever stop another company from inventing a superior technology, or providing a superior service, or even a better operating system. I think Rambus could be a gorilla in the making based on widespread adoption of RDRAM in many niches. As a low overhead, high profit operation, my hope is that they accrue such a cash horde, that they will be best positioned to acquire talent and IP to sustain their lead in technological superiority. In the interim, we can sit back and enjoy the RDRAM run. best, Apollo

To: EnricoPalazzo who wrote (42051)	4/22/2001 11:26:31 AM
From: Apollo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Rambus...a few added thoughts. But I do not think that RMBS is a Gorilla in the making. From my perspective, RMBS has a very profitable position in an open proprietary architecture, but they don't have control over it (even though they invented it!). Rambus controls the RDRAM architecture. Perpetuating it in the marketplace with a series of sustained innovations, should continue to extend the CAP for some time. Similar, in a way, to Windows 3.0, followed by Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 98, Win98se, and Win Millenium. Win XP will represent a discontinous innovation, as I understand it. I would hope that Rambus would be able to follow a similar path. Apollo