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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (27031)	11/26/2004 11:31:58 PM
From: NHP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Long-term storage of digital photos Sam, Every reference to longevity of data stored on flash media that I've read indicates that the expected data retention is 10 years, nominal. I would expect the SLC to retain the data longer than the MLC. You will find your concerns regarding long-term storage addressed at: tasi.ac.uk Here is an excerpt from the above article regarding storage on CDs: "It is thought that the reflective property of 'gold' discs is higher than that of cyanine-based 'green' discs, and some manufacturers claim the durability of such CD-Rs is over 100 years. Other physical characteristics such as dye thickness can also have an effect on the longevity of the media. Without yet being able to see what happens to a CD-R after a period of 25 years, yet alone 100, it is impossible to say how durable one type will be compared to another. The results of a 1999 quality test, which subjected a range of manufacturers' CD-Rs to an artificial aging process, can be found at cdmediaworld.com. While gold discs might well be worth the extra cost, 'normal' quality discs made by reputable manufacturers should be acceptable for archive use, as long as all care is taken to burn them correctly." Please note that storage on DVD is not mentioned [NHP]. Sony's Blue-Ray DVD, which has a capacity of 23 to 25 GBytes, has just hit the Japanese market. The price that I saw is $4,750 for the recorder-player, and one disk sells for $40. Interesting! Since your problem is not unique, I would expect some company at some time to optimize the recorder and media combination for maximum retention of data.. I don't know too much about optomagnetic recording, but that might be a possibility. At least it is difficult to lose data because of exposure to magnetic fields at room temperature. NHP

To: Sam Citron who wrote (27031)	11/27/2004 9:50:20 AM
From: Howard R. Hansen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

If not, who is now the low cost producer and what is their estimated capacity? The producers of flash memory do not break out their production cost for flash memory but the odds on favorite for lowest cost producer is Samsung. The following is a headline from a South Korea newspaper. Samsung bolstered its leadership position in the flash memory market in the third quarter with a market share of 24.8 percent, up from 23 percent in the second quarter

To: Sam Citron who wrote (27031)	11/27/2004 10:21:17 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Sam, during the period from 1998 through at least the early part of 2004, there is a good case for SanDisk being the low cost producer during portions of that time, based on more efficient designs and accompanying royalty payments. When Toshiba and SanDisk decided to move their new chip fabricating facility from Virginia to Japan, during that period (using an older Toshiba facility in Japan to make chips), it is likely that Samsung got an edge on efficiency. But that was at least partly compensated by SanDisk's proprietary MLC technology. It is pretty generally agreed that there are many ways to make flash memory, and no company has enough proprietary technology to prevent some other firm from entering the market with a reasonably low cost product. There are several ways a company can deal with the need to remain competitive. I think SanDisk has done a pretty good job by adopting the following strategies: 1. Maintaining and enforcing its proprietary technology to the extent possible, thereby discouraging other firms from getting an unfair advantage. 2. Creating brand recognition in a vertically integrated operation that extends from wafer production to final product sold at retail under the SanDisk label. Being able to sell directly into the retail market on the SanDisk label provides an opportunity to obtain higher margins than would be possible from confining the market to OEM and wholesale customers. 3. Creating new applications for flash memory, designed to use the higher capacity, more profitable flash memory units. While this strategy helps the whole industry, brand recognition assures that SanDisk has a better chance of making profits from new applications, such as USB storage, SPA, iPOD competition, solid state video, etc. As the unit cost of flash goes down, flash becomes a viable substitute for older forms of storage, including hard disk drives. 4. Creating unique applications for flash memory, where no other form of storage is practical or feasible. This includes military and industrial applications requiring a combination of ruggedness, reliability, and low current draw. The issues that SanDisk will have to deal with over the long term include better, more competitive product designs and legal action to prevent patent infringement or unfair subsidies to make products from other firms more competitive. Art

To: Sam Citron who wrote (27031)	12/2/2004 10:47:11 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

If not, who is now the low cost producer [of flash] and what is their estimated capacity? And when was SNDK the low cost producer? Actually, the question itself is not the right one to ask. There are different kinds of flash and even within the two basic types (NOR and NAND), there are different capacity points and uses. The "low cost producer" of one could easily be (and probably is) different from the "low cost producer" of another. Further complicating matters, it is my understanding that, at least, for many uses of flash chips, the chips are not simply interchangeable with each other, which is a major difference with DRAM. Supplier relationships, forecasting and hitting "sweet spots," and marketing are as important or perhaps even more important than being the "low cost producer" in this market. And of course having important patents.