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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (20874)	2/1/1999 9:58:00 AM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

>> the costs of a single laser failure are far larger, and the advantages of standardization for the customer are far smaller. You are correct on the first point and incorrect on the second.<< Katherine, Deming must be rolling over in his grave. :-) I can't think of a real life example where more standardization has directly lead to increased costs, reduced yields, up-time, etc. Rather, standardization even in the so called "commodity" hardware parts leads directly to more consistent and better quality. And I doubt that anyone looks at DUV lasers as a commodity item. Yet, at least. RE non 248nm lasers and CYMI. CYMI couldn't produce the 248nm lasers as rapidly as it could sell them. This was the high volume and rapid growth laser niche. It focused on 248nm. That was then, this is now. Even the UTEK PGILD tool uses a non CYMI laser. I still believe that CYMI will go after the sweet spot in the laser market will high quality, value added lasers. When 193nm or 157nm lasers are in demand, CYMI will be there with the "best" product. Until they're in demand, the competitors will be forced to attempt to establish toeholds in economically unattractive areas. (short term basis) I further believe the reason why CYMI's competitors have avoided a head to head fight, is simply because CYMI is much better. .. and that it will stay so for several years to come. FWIW, Ian.

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (20874)	2/1/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: FJB	Respond to of 25960

the costs of a single laser failure are far larger, and the advantages of standardization for the customer are far smaller. Before I clarify my position, perhaps you could list the benefits of a semiconductor manufacturer using two suppliers for a critical component like the light source. I can't think of any. I would think product support and uptime of such a critical component would be of utmost importance. How would Lambda support the end user? They have no support infrastructure in place. They have yet to build these lasers in any quantity. Assuming Lambda would be willing to hire hundreds of support people with ZERO installed base, how many customers would want two teams of support people on site or two support contracts? I doubt Lambda is going to double their workforce with no installed base. Here is the type of support Cymer offers to provide 98% uptime. cymer.com Why is it that semiconductor manufacturers standardize on one lithography vendor for critical lithography? When SVGL qualified Lambda as a second source, this is what they had to say about it in their SEC filings. Additionally, a version of the Company's Micrascan III photolithography system utilizes an Excimer laser that is manufactured in volume by only one supplier, which until the first quarter of fiscal 1998 was the only supplier the Company had determined could meet its specifications. SVGL has recently qualified an additional source of lasers for its current and future versions of Micrascan products, allowing the potential for the integration of such lasers into its system configurations.* However, there can be no assurance that its customers will be receptive to procuring products with lasers from this supplier, or the supplier will be able to provide product of sufficient quantity and quality. If these suppliers were unable to meet their commitments, SVGL would be unable to manufacture the quantity of products required to meet the anticipated future demand, which would have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations.* A comment from another part of the filing. Semiconductor manufacturers tend to select either a single supplier or a primary supplier for a certain type of equipment. sec.gov