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.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KM who wrote (34378)	11/3/1997 11:06:00 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 58324

>>I looked at the Shark product this weekend and it is impressive and tempting. But so what? Everybody I work with has zip or jaz. My firm has 14 jaz drives. I don't get it. << Trufflette - I agree with you about the Shark. It's a very sexy product. I thought about getting one when it first came out, but that old compatibility bugaboo got me. On the other hand, while Zip would be pretty hard to catch, I don't think Jaz's lead is insurmountable at this point. SparQ has a real shot, IMO. Its success depends upon public perception of its reliability, value, utilty, etc. And on SyQuest being able to actually get them out the door. After reviewing the technical specs on SparQ, I now see that the carts are exactly the same size as SyJet's. They only look large on the website because they used a small kid as a model. I figure they are using the same shells as SyJet with only minor modifications. This will enable them to produce SparQ cartridges without doing too much retooling. Very smart, since they won't be completely losing their SyJet investment, even though they are obviously killing that product. Someone on the SyQuest thread suggested that they might just be using rejected SyJet disks and formatting them for a lower capacity, but that's silly. SyJet uses two platters, SparQ only one. Whoops, veered off into nerdland, there. Who cares, right? - Allen

To: KM who wrote (34378)	11/3/1997 11:30:00 PM
From: robert read	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

i don't get what the fuzz is all about either. just read the heading on the syquest thread from 1995. it was started because they were excited about beating iomega with their new products, and see what happened. the rest is history. this kind of news had an effect on iomegas stock price in the past. but now that iomega has decimated them, the street won't pay any attention to that crap given iomegas proven record. the name of the game is momentum. but some here are sounding just like they did with that crap about a reflector, to those worrying sell me your shares and get a life for a change.

To: KM who wrote (34378)	11/4/1997 3:55:00 AM
From: Chucky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

Trufflette, "the best argument against the SYQT and Shark products are the incompatibility with IOM products." This may be true for the Zip, but I don't know if that is true for the Jaz. I think that market is still up for grabs. What made people buy a Zip a few years ago when it wasn't compatible with the Syquest or Magneto Optical devices out there? I remember seeing an article in USA Today and was sold. I wasn't about to pay $500 for a 128 MB Magneto Optical drive with $25 disks, and performance wise, the Zip could hold its own. The Zips sold to the technofiles first, but at a general consumer price. I don't understand why Syquest doesn't have an external SCSI device though, and they really seem to be ignoring their following. I'm curious how they are getting prices so low. Would it have been that bad for marketing to slash the Syjet product prices, or was it not possible? Anyone have any ideas about the ratio of SCSI/Parallel drives sold? Still long IOM, but am trying not to become complacent. I did catch some May 22.5 calls this last dip after doubling my shares @ 22.5 during the blip on 10/7. Later Chucky