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 : INVX Innovex Comdex Winner !! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Oliver who wrote (2246)	2/25/1998 1:41:00 AM
From: Douglas V. Fant	Respond to of 3029

Mark, It sounds as if RDRT's Program when implemented, would compete directly with INVX's approach. However let's see RDRT put the program into effect first... Also I believe that RDRT is looking at flip chip assembly as a new market. That market is projected to grow at a clip of 38% annually by the Delco Electronics/Kulicke &Sofa Flip Chip components Joint Venture based in Phoenix, Arizona. So there is a lot of room in that market, and indeed a lot of companies looking at entry. I believe that is why HDCO announced the purchase of CCIR last week, positioning HDCO for a move on the flip chip assembly market.... So currently the impact upon INVX I would rate as to RDRT FOS program as unclear- as to RDRT's entry into the flex assembly market, probably of little impact upon INVX as there are other bigger companies already in that market.... Sincerely, Doug F.

To: Mark Oliver who wrote (2246)	2/26/1998 7:54:00 PM
From: Kurthend	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3029

Mark and Doug, Two messages I came across from the Yahoo board. messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Subj: message from D. Kellar By: tburnside Date: Feb 26 1998 2:05 P.M PST Reply To: Msg. 1115 by Sceja this is my first time on one of these boards. I've tend to avoid them unless I believe that there is something useful to add. But I've learned at least a little from the board and definately been exposed to some of the good and bad prospects of INVX. So you know my bias, I'm long on INVX. Real long. I've spoken with D. Kellar (CFO) every few months about the progress. He tends to restate the latest conference call. But there is usually something else. Here's the latest... HIF is going well. It can do anything, and he repeated anything, that TSA can do. They can give it to customers in two pieces. They can give it to them in one piece. They can mount it for their customers. Any of these options are still less expensive than TSA. And they can do it today- not tomorrow, but today, in production volumes. HIF will comprise only a small percentage of their income this year. It is for top-of-the-line drives only. INVX believes it will take some time before drive makers (1999) to really convert a majority of drives to HIF or TSA. Until then, MR technology will dominate. This quarter will be glim in dd overall. INVX will be profitable, but not nearly so much as last quarter, last year. He didn't speculate a turn-around time, but stated INVX has quite yet seen it. But They Will... 3 months, 6 months, 1 year. They also said they had other products in the works. No other comments available at this time. Finally, he said long term that the future looked great. And I trust him with this info. Since I bought INVX in '95, he's never lied. As for the TSA vs. HIF battle- it will have an impact in the company- good or bad, but it is not an all or nothing product. Even this technology will change. (I think HIF edges out in the end). That's it. Some opinion. Lemme know if it's helpful. If not, I off. Because some of the other comments don't do much for me. Cheers, L messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Subj: HTCH/INVX By: orca99 Date: Feb 26 1998 12:09 P.M PST Reply To: Msg. 112 by stockscreeneratwork I own neither stk at this time but am pacing the sidelines. The following is an interesting column from the latest HTCH house organ. FLEX ON SUSPENSION(FOS)-BEEN THERE, DONE THAT Some folks in the disk drive market have decided that Flex On Suspension is better, cheaper, easier and whatever than our TSA. One source seems to never tire of telling the world that we are on the wrong path, that TSA doesn't work and that FOS will win. We've hardly bothered to reply and they seem to have concluded that our low profile proves they are right. They're not. We were the first ones to develop FOS by sticking our own flex circuits onto our own suspensions. That was years ago and after working with it for at least three years we sold the technology to another company. We found that FOS had inherent problems. Little things like it's subject to unacceptable pitch and roll errors with temperature and humidity changes. It's too heavy. Positioning the circuit is both difficult and expensive. Gluing the circuit to the suspension puts more variables into the most delicate part of the assembly. And, making the circuit was difficult and costly. So, we started working on the TSA approach and combined oour efforts with IBM who was going down a similar path. The result is that TSA is gaining wide customer acceptance and is being committed to on an increasing number of projects. Of course, we could spend our time beating our chests and arguing with our outspoken competitors. But, we decided instead to just keep working on TSA and winning programs. We think wins speak louder than words.

To: Mark Oliver who wrote (2246)	3/2/1998 7:05:00 PM
From: Kurthend	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3029

Mark, I came across this on the Yahoo thread. It explains the pros and cons of TSA vs HIF. It sounds decent but not being a dd or computer expert I can only quess as to its authenticity. In simplified terms: Picture a suspension assembly in terms of a phonagraph. The needle corresponds to the read/write head, the tone arm corresponds to the spring portion of the suspension assembly, and the wires running down the tone arm from the needle cartridge to base corresponds to the electrical leads. HIF and TSA are both approaches to changing suspension assembly manufacturing processes by eliminating the need to attach fine wire electrical leads to a disk drive suspension assembly after the suspension is manufactured. The fine wire leads are the medium through which the disk drive controller communicates with the read/write head on the end of the suspension assembly. The wires are currently manually attached by a worker looking through a microscope. The process is labor intensive and has a relatively high scrap rate. Both HIF and TSA integrate the electrical leads with the suspension assembly. This eliminates the labor and scrap associated with manually attaching wire leads to suspension assemblies. The Innovex HIF approach is to bond a flex circuit to the spring portion of the suspension assembly. The advantage of the HIF approach is that flex circuits are a mature technology. The manufacturing process is well understood, as is the bonding process. This lowers unit costs and expedites manufacturing startup. The downside is that the thermal properties of the assembly change (the flex circuits expand and contract differently than the suspension in response to changes in environmental conditions). The thermal property differences can introduce movement in the head as it moves over the disk. If the head touches the disk you get a disk crash. If the head moves too far away from the disk you can't read the data.. This forces the designers to beef up the spring portion of the suspension assembly to minimize undesirable movement of the head. This reinforcement, combined with the weight of the flex circuit must be accounted for in the design by increasing the size of the actuator, the motor that moves the suspension assembly over the disk surface. Increased weight and motor size are undesirable because the reduce the amount of data the drive can hold and the speed at which data can be retrieved. The designer must either dedicate additional space for a larger motor, reducing space available for media, or accept slower movement of the supension as it hubts for data on the disk surface. HTI's TSA approach integrates the the electrical leads with the spring portion of the suspension assembly. The leads are manufactured within the material that constitutes the spring portion of the suspension assembly using proprietary manufacturing techniques. The advantage is that the weight and bulk penalties associated with the flex circuit are eliminated. The downside is that the manufacturing processes are being created as the products are developed. This leads to more expensive and longer manufacturing ramp ups The technical differences between the products and manufacturing processes are much more complex than I have described. I hope this provides the "plain english" version in a way that makes it more understandable.