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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (78817)	10/1/2001 2:01:17 PM
From: Andre Williamson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Food for thought: The US PC market was relatively steady for years with a ~40% penetration, and the market was driven largely by performance upgrades. Then the sub-$1,000 computer came along with a slightly less user-unfriendly interface; combine this with the growing pull of e-mail and the web, and penetration was finally shoved over 50%. Seems to me that we're largely saturated now (again) - in the US - given available PC uses vs. most user requirements and computer aptitude+interest. So what will drive PC sales going forward? Shouldn't we be back to some extent in a performance market, one where the objective isn't so much to draw in new users so much as meet their need for much higher performance? And won't these new 'killer apps' require a substantial leap over today's mid-range machines? What I'm thinking is this: what if we're in a trough of sorts, where the mid- to high-end desktop PCs today don't yet meet the requirements of tomorrow's killer apps (e.g., video processing, voice recognition), but also don't much improve the performance of today's necessary apps? In other words, could it be that we need a few more rounds of improved processors to finally draw in new consumers in serious numbers? And doesn't this imply that 'budget PCs' will be nothing but the equivalent of small bandaids on the gaping wounds of the semiconductor industry? Andre

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (78817)	10/1/2001 7:43:32 PM
From: techreports	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93625

I don't know why i'm even bothering with this reply, but here it goes.. tech, the basic economics is so simple. computers are turning into a commodity. PRICE is HUGE. faster dram is all nice and good, however, at what cost (not to mention rmbs may not even be faster!!!)? So comptuers have not been commodities in the past? If computers are commodities, then you better tell Intel and Microsoft they are screwed. Price is huge? Explain to me why AMD has a cheaper and faster product (atholon) yet only gets 20% market share? (i know, do you?) Explain to me why AMD is Intel's only real competitor in a market that's worth many billions over (ie. Intel is a gorilla) Again, if Intel wants RDRAM as the standard, that's what people will buy. Second, when did people give a flip about what kind of RAM is inside their computer (the majority of people don't care. Only nerds like yourself do.). And for your comment that RDRAM might not provide any increase in speed, then explain the reports I've read that a 1.5GHz P4 with RDRAM out does a 1.7GHz P4 with SDRAM, yet costs less? the bottom line is that rdram boxes cost a ton more and provide very little, if any, benefit to the vast majority of users. there are small niches where rmbs does outperform more than the marginal cost. again, RDRAM adds like 40-60 dollars to the cost of a computer. If you are buying a $2,000 dollar machine, it doesn't really matter. Granted, if you are buying a 600 dollar machine, then it probably does. intel is going to ddr to try and maintain and grow market share. why? the vast majority of folks will turn to an alternative commodity computer vendor if the price is right - and the price is right for sdram and ddr. oh, i keep forgetting. People buy computers because of the type of ram inside them. I guess i'm retarded. This is also ignoring the fact that RDRAM prices will come down in price. What happens if RDRAM is as cheap as DDR? It is like these arguments people had against Aol. Telling me how newbees would leave after a few years once they learned how to use the internet (nerds leave. The majority of America likes Aol). How ISPs with their flat rate of 15.98 would eat away at Aol's market share. These people never give it any thought that Aol could eventually move to the flat rate plan as well. RDRAM prices will come down, but apparently, you can't look out more than 12 months. Again, i think you are providing trash. At least Bilow offers some original reasons backed up with facts. p.s. not claiming RMBS will do anything like AOL. Also, not claiming RDRAM will be as cheap as DDR, but the price will come down if Samsung and others use new technologies to decrease costs.