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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hdl who wrote (73742)	5/28/2001 3:10:39 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi hdl; Re: "If rdram on a cost-benefit analysis makes sense for users and makers, then more rdram will be sold. it doesn't have to be the cheapest, just best cost-benefit tradeoff. then there will be more sales on which rmbs will earn royalties." This is the crux of the issue. Unfortunately for mom and pop, the issue is a complex one of engineering design, and is not easily amenable to facile analysis through "cookie and broomstick" analogies. It's the basher's contention that the only reason Rambus has had success in the chipset business is because of Intel pushing it. That success caused some other successes in other markets, as long as the industry was convinced that Intel would have its way. Probably the best example of a market where high bandwidth per chip is a concern is in graphics, and in that market, the companies that designed RDRAM chipsets either never got any to market, or lost their market share to the DDR users. Nvidia is the great success here. The same thing is happening in the desktop market. The company that supported DDR first is stealing market share from the company that supported RDRAM. The promise that RDRAM will soon be as cheap as SDRAM is something that has been repeatedly stated since 1998. It isn't happening, and no one in the industry thinks it is. That's why there are still zero companies with RDRAM x86 chipsets other than Intel. It is very obvious that the industry doesn't believe that RDRAM pricing is going to reach SDRAM levels. If it were the other way around, the RDRAM chipsets would be under development, but they're not. Given this, and especially given the long history of pronouncements of the soon to exist cheap RDRAM, why do mom and pop believe the predictions of the company that just got convicted of fraud? -- Carl