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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hightechhooper who wrote (13013)	6/12/1998 8:59:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

and IBM is not the GOD you are making them out to be... Like I said I am getting a bit tired with all of these regular ominous warnings of impending doom... I have really no interest in defending LSI or whatever... the weather here is bad so I am just wasting time as I usually do... sure I've said it before I would be a strong proponent of LSI partnering with someone but those companies gain more from this than LSI does - just count the total R&D spending for LSI on IP over the years... that is worth more than 5 fabs easy... it is not about buying 1 or 2 cores it is about buying several dozens of cores as a fully functioning interoperable set... TXN would be interesting but this segment is not their focus as of now... STM would be more viable but both compete robustly anyway... better for LSI to share cap. exp somehow and keep the IP to themselves... this suggests to me a foundry type agreement at 0.18 or way below... I never said LSI was a God, you guys make it sound that IBM is a God and we should be petrified... as so many occassions in the past have shown - all nonsensical arguments predicated primarily on fear... We've been through the higher stock price a zillion times before as well... I said I don't know - it is likely a combination of a delayed rollout of DVD (a 100 million shortfall) + woefully inadequate tools... All I've said is that LSI is good and IBM is good... and I stand by that... if you've seen the light good for you... 'Dippy' is spelt with a single p... when the spell is broken and you have to convince yourself to hold you had best do yourself a favor and sell... You had a chance at the 21 level when you were talking about your 'concerns'... LSI will be over $100 a share with or without all your 'concerns'... watch the revenue growth this year... duh! and like we did not know about the 'significant impact' thing... check out the other 95% of the semis for proof now... as I've said earlier it is a bit dicy holding a stock in a sector that is getting creamed but regardless of the stock price I like my chances and I do not consider the company to be the Almighty or Athena... I just have a much (and I mean much) longer holding period than the average tech 'investor'... have you been chastened with the experiences from other tech stocks?... I think IDTI was another one you fell in love with and so was ATML?... those are different companies... both have a common trait - competing with INTC and not very high IP markets (but both are getting much better)... Besides did you see Kurlak's opinion of LSI almost right after you posted your reasons about big l/t problems for LSI... I think he (finally) saw through the nonsensical arguments of impending doom regularly put forth on this thread...

To: Hightechhooper who wrote (13013)	6/13/1998 7:38:00 PM
From: Grand Poobah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

K, Sorry if I'm getting into this discussion a little bit late... Re: Design expertise can be bought or cloned much easier than most people want to believe. Not true. It is very difficult for companies to develop, accumulate, or buy and integrate design expertise. There is much, much more hue and cry in the media about companies moving into new markets than there ever are good product offerings that follow from the announcements. Witness INTC's ballyhooed acquisition of Chips and Technologies and how the whole graphics chip industry was supposedly in imminent danger of INTC dominance. Now a few months or a year later we are hearing how INTC's i740 graphics chip just isn't up to snuff with the competition and they are having to dump inventory. If INTC can't just buy into a new market, who can? Also witness all the Japanese DRAM makers who talked so big about getting out of the low-margin DRAM business and jumping into SOC (or system LSI as they call it over there). Now we hear that that is not so easily accomplished (something about their problems was posted on this thread, I think). It is true that there are successful acquisitions and that design groups leave companies and make successful new startups, but the failures of those kind of ventures greatly outnumber the successes. There is just too much involved these days in making a successful new design. I posted a summary a while back on what was involved in the IC design process, so I won't rehash that, but suffice it to say that the company infrastructure and R&D processes have a huge impact on the success of any design. Contrary to your claim, I would say that design of today's 500k gate designs is not as easy or portable as it is often made out to be in the press. Process technology is the real differentiator because it is more art and less science than most people believe (that is why INTC kicks butt, not design but manufacturing). Here I would agree with you but would perhaps put a different spin on it. Process technology is more engineering and less science than most people believe. I have seen a lot of process engineers make stupid decisions because they didn't know how to make good engineering decisions. Processing is really not that mystical. You get yourself into trouble when you are running the process because it works and you don't know why. What happens then when something in your process drifts and you start losing yield? You have to go back and do the engineering you should have done in the first place. I have seen this happen more times than I wish. INTC kicks butt because they are a good engineering organization from top to bottom in everything they do, whether it is processing, design, or marketing. Sometimes they can be a little arrogant about it and they certainly don't like to admit when they've made a mistake, but despite that I have enjoyed the times I've worked with them because you know they will do a good job of engineering. I think LSI is also good in this regard, but INTC of course is at the head of the class. G.P.