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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (46151)2/8/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 132070
 
Tom, I don't know the answer. It may have something to do with TXN's fabs potential vs. reality and when they are recognized, legally, as MU capacity. But that doesn't seem to cover the discrepancy.

Did you read that article? It was insanely bullish, making a one month tiny sequential increase the basis for saying that DRAM is back. One month during which most Xmas ordering is done and shipments received by OEMs. Year over year, the same month didn't look quite as good. <G> In fact, it looked kinda negatory, good buddy.

Wish I could help on the market share bit, but I don't know the answer.

MB



To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (46151)2/8/1999 10:17:00 PM
From: Earlie  Respond to of 132070
 
Tom:
I'm still digesting that excellent piece you wrote to my query about the $6.00 price on 64s (which I genuinely expect this summer). Remind me never go to a bargaining table if you're on the other side. (g)
Well done.
I had the same sort of reaction last year, when we dug into the claim that MU was the "low cost producer". In fact they were, so long as one neglected to include interest costs, amortization, R&D, inventory scams, etc.

This company is a perfect example of how wrong Lincoln was about fooling most of the people most of the time. On thinking about it for a minute, perhaps he was right,... the referenced noun is people, not lambs.

Best, Earlie