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 : S3 (A LONGER TERM PERSPECTIVE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rob who wrote (12701)	2/5/1999 9:52:00 AM
From: Paul Frantzis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14577

re: Apple & Exponential Besides being a multi-year S3 long, I'm a Mac-head. Based on publicly available media reports (I was not privy to any inside info) on the Apple/Exponential relationship, this is what transpired: (1) Apple had committed to purchase processors from Exponential (don't know the terms of the contract though); (2) Exponential was late to deliver (sound familiar?). They had some serious problems (may have been heat related, but I don't recall); (3) By the time Exponential had a product for delivery, that product was a good deal slower than what they had originally planned for (something like a 400 MHz processor versus ~550 MHz); and (4) MOT's and IBM's regular Power PC processors, while not running at 400 MHz, had become a lot faster (maybe 300 MHz max) and Apple claimed that the difference was not great enough to justify the additional cost (and probably risk) of the Expo chips. That decision killed Exponential. From a non-contractual perspective, I think Apple made the right decision. Regardless of the Apple/Exponential spat, the key issue from S3's perspective is whether or not Apple has a valid claim to its Exponential patents. My recollection is that Exponential worked closely with Apple (and MOT and IBM too), but the actual processor R&D was performed by Expo's technical staff. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, I don't see how Apple has a leg to stand on here (you don't see MOT and/or IBM suing for Expo's patents, right?).