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: Sam Citron who wrote (7756)	10/27/2003 11:31:02 AM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

As difficult as most of the questions we struggle with on this thread are - you have posed a much more difficult one -identifying the "emerging technologies that may be instrumental in creating the products of tomorrow". Even harder is to guess at the products of tomorrow. We often have heard "no one needs all that computing power". I believe we are a long way from that but at some point it will surely come true. JMHO, Will

To: Sam Citron who wrote (7756)	10/27/2003 11:42:40 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 25522

Sam, I fail to see how your comparison of current CMOS v. organic geometries addresses the question of the disruptive potential of organics. Until something like organic technology can be produced on a mass scale and at or near the levels of current CMOS technology, I think one must view it as complementary. INTC is not about to ditch all of their decades of CMOS work for something unproven. There is ALOT of potential technologies out there that have the potential to threaten the future of CMOS. Virtually all of it is pie-in-the-sky however. The burden at this point is for the challengers to prove why their technology is not only feasible, but economically viable and at the same time less of a risk for the semiconductor manufacturuers than staying the course we have been on for almost 40 years. That is a high hurdle to overcome, especially if CMOS roadmap issues are being addressed at the 65 nm level and below, as appears to be happening. I would add one thing: if you are looking for a breakthrough, look to IBM. I believe the next "Big Thing" will come from such a company as "Big Blue", as the future technologies will most likely be expensive. Remember that IBM was the first with copper and many other breakthroughs. That would be my bet going forward. My .02 Brian

To: Sam Citron who wrote (7756)	10/27/2003 11:59:02 AM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

1. I think you should forget the term "disruptive". 2. If you read the abstract, you will find that "sub 100 microns" and "10s of kiloherz" are research targets. 3. I said "complementary" because I agree that there will be useful applications from the technology. 4. We certainly should look at new technologies. I think the issue of "disruptive potential" must be considered in the context of relevant parameters. The ones I cited support the idea of "apples to oranges" not disruptive potential", in a reasonable time frame.