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 : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (1833)	9/29/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

nomai <<You are mistaken about many things. According to www.nomai.com, the "Infinity 2000" is not a DVD drive, but a removable magnetic hard disc just like Jaz2. Expect this product to be dropped, as it would conflict with Iomega's Jaz2>> the infinity 2000 technology supports technology like the Jaz 2, correct, and can be released as a lower cost version of a Jaz 2. the inf 2000 was to give IOM a low cost alternative to compete with Spar Q, i.e., 2gb disks to cost as little as $40 (presumably - you obviously implied from my post that the 2000 was a DVD?). only IOM/Nomai knows whether they will launch or not. the launch of the Nomai DVD, however, is very much happening, despite yourself. as for the CDr/rw drives competing with the Zip/Jaz; nah. at this stage they're still all products which are capturing percentages of their respective markets. Nomai's CDr/rw is not a big player. Phillips, owns a large share of this market. Nomai hasn't aggessively marketed their CD products in the US, but they're available through different big name OEMs under their respective brands. i would consider the products complimentary to IOM's financials and mutually exclusive, not as you suggest.

To: Rocky Reid who wrote (1833)	9/29/1998 5:32:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10072

rr, here's some numbers to have lunch with: The zip line has produced $2,665 billion in revenue for IOM since it's introduction. wtih 17 mill zips, that would equal $156.00 per zip (which includes disks). Market assumes 90 million pcs will be sold this year, increasing at an average rate of about 17% for the next five years. In four years 144 million new pcs will be sold (these numbers do not include servers, or enterprise data). Total accumulative PCs sold over the next four years equals 267 million. IOM captures 7% of pcs sold with zip (as expected) in the first year (they're already at 5% of all new pcs). and continues to increase new pc market share at a rate of 20% a year for four years. In four years they will have captured a total of 16% of new PCs sold. in the fourth year, zips sold will equal 23 million. Cummulative zips sold, with a starting point of 17 million equals 67 million in four years. 67 million X current dollar figure per zip sold of $156 = $10.452 billion cummulative revenue, or an addition of $7.78 billion revenue ($10.452 - current revenue to date of $2.665 billion) over four years / 4 = nearly $2 billion in revenue from zips alone. of course, ($156 may be too high in four years as zips should be less expensive, but total disks sold are expected to increase per unit sold) and all this from capturing ONLY 16% of new pcs sold in the 4th year. if you raise that number to IOM's actual current new capture rate (increasing from 7% to 21% over four years) , then revenue jumps from $7.78 billion to $9,429 billion over four years; which equals $2.357 billion in revenue average over four years. and this with only a 21% new capture rate. one would need to assume that the zip would capture a much greater number of new systems than 21% in four years if it were the standard. the possibility of IOM introducing a 200mg or greater capacity drive within that time frame and being able to capture a higher rate is significant. (if you want to take it to a standard with 75% capture rate in the fourth year; up from 7%, then cummulative zips would equal 125 million X $156, or $19.5 billion in cummulative revenue, or $4.87 billion in revenue averaged annually) all that said, $4 is not a significantly high price to pay given the risk/reward over the next four years from zip alone. these calculations don't include revenue from other sources; so the upside surprise should be greater than any downside, passing market emotional sentiment