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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (7659)	10/22/2003 9:40:43 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25522

True! That would say the value form ONTK was the people, not the technology in the long run. I haven't listened to the CC yet. Also, wasn't ONTK a wafer cleaning company where CMP is polishing which is somewhat different but related? I think the cleaning might be a final step after a polish... but I could be mistaken. I have made no predictions one way or the other for LRCX re CMP. I'm just saying that often good management knows when to stop pissing in the wind if they don't have a competitive product. I do remember Bagley making a promise to discuss CMP status this quarter so if he doesn't have much to offer, then I'd start to wonder if they will be a player.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (7659)	10/22/2003 1:36:43 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

RE: CMP I listened to the CC for LRCX It sounds like very good news for their Terres CMP tool. They cut the cost of Consumables in half and reliability of tool and software about double the competition at 300mm. Customer evaluations have customers saying equal to or better than competition. Bagley wants them to say it is much better so they can gain market share with it. This is where "not wanting to be a me too tool" came from. He pointed out in the conf in several places that market share gains are made in bad times and you just ship during good times. I think this means the companies don't have resources to re-qualify something that works and the cost incentive is not so large for cheaper tools when they are making money hand over fist during up cycles. I like listening to Bagley as he usually teaches me something like that... in a way that makes sense. Expects 10% sequential revenue growth. Flat earnings this Q due to many things including raises, profit sharing, etc. Said there is a new cost model on the web site.