SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: akidron who wrote (17392)3/9/1998 2:00:00 AM
From: Clarksterh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Aki - Well, I agree that it is looking like the STB isn't going to be as much of a computer as I had originally hoped (although 200 MIPS is nothing to sneeze at). However, silicon is silicon and 4.5B is a lot of money in the consumer electronics arena, especially given that General Instruments is only one of three major players (Scientific Atlanta and Divicom being the others). It sounds like the total expected to be spent on STB's over the next 3 years is on the order of 10 to 15 Billion. And about 1/2 of that cost is silicon (a good generalization for consumer electronics is 1/2 of the manufacturer's cost is silicon, the rest is manufacturing.) That equates to 2 Billion dollars of silicon every year. That is still a lot.

As for the PC's, I see several choices for what caused the Intel shortfall:

1) Lessening end-market demand. This would be bad for multiple quarters, however this is unlikely since I saw an article saying that in January unit sales were up very substantially from the previous year. (Note that if the price dropped sufficiently it is possible that dollars are down even though units are up, but the impression I got from the article I read was that dollar sales were up in addition to units. Also note, lessening of demand has happened in the past - but typically two or three quarters before Intel introduces a really new processor.)

2) Inventory adjustments at CPQ, HWP, ... to keep up with the very rapidly changing prices in PC's. Practically guaranteed that this is happening to some extent since it is exactly what you would expect a company to do to avoid rapidly depreciating inventory. This is, at most, the problem of a quarter or two.

3) Channel stuffing. Aki's scenario. Certainly possible, but again only a short term effect (unless they really stuffed those channels) of a quarter or two.

4) Intel losing market share. Definitely happening, but not bad for the semi industry as a whole in either the short or long term.

5) CPQ, AMD, ... losing money is not necessarily bad for the semi industry as whole. It is only bad if it indicates excess capacity, but in this case I read an article several months ago that either AMD or Cyrix (I forget which) was actually having trouble keeping up with demand.

Thus, only 1 and part of 5 are really bad news for the industry, and I think both are unlikely given the stats I've seen. So, I expect (hope?) that there might be a short term blip at Intel and some box manufacturers, but 6 months from now everything will be forgotten.

Anyway, enough said by me on this topic. I'll see if I can find some of the stats I referenced in this post.

Clark