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: Jdaasoc who wrote (74813)	6/22/2001 3:07:36 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi Jdaasoc; Re: "I am going to try to summarize the MM dilemma as succinctly as possible. If they don't get new socket design accepted soon, they will be dogged continuously by the pricing problem we have now." It's my belief that the mainstream memory will be a money loser a substantial percentage of the time no matter what the MMs do. That is simply the nature of a commodity product. They'll lose money on DDR just as they currently are on SDRAM, and they'll make money on DDR just as they recently were on SDRAM, depending on market conditions. The niche memories are always "profitable", but they are limited in volume. Micron, being the lowest cost producer, naturally is the company in big support of DDR, and the least in support of niche types. They know that when (if) the industry converts over to DDR, Micron will be guaranteed profits (when the less profitable companies give up producing). As the industry goes over to DDR, Samsung will be in a bit of trouble, as their production costs are higher than Micron's. Samsung, on the other hand, is the leader in getting high yields in high speed, cutting edge memories. It's natural that Samsung pushes RDRAM, because if the industry converted over to RDRAM, Samsung would easily have much higher yields than anyone else and would likely be guaranteed profitable. If RDRAM were the winner, Micron would be in a bit of trouble, because their yields of RDRAM are likely well below Samsung's, and their lower costs aren't low enough to make up the yield difference. I don't think DDR is a salvation for the memory makers. It is just the next dull, uninspired, boring, typical use, default memory for run of the mill applications. It's more like the conversion from PC66 to PC100 than a conversion to RDRAM. The longs saying that RDRAM is the wave of the future because RDRAM is (currently) profitable is equivalent to saying that since ostrich ranchers are making good money on ostrich meat, it is inevitable that the public will quit eating beef. The true fact is that ostriches and RDRAM are niche markets, and the economics of production in those markets are largely disconnected from the economics of production in the mainstream industries. -- Carl