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 : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: golden_tee who wrote (651)	4/8/1999 9:56:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Respond to of 10293

<<. Still accusing Wolanchuk of being a paid spokesman for VLNC?>> I have to give Wolanchuk one thing...he has balls. However, he's going to have to think twice about what he says about Valence in the future.

To: golden_tee who wrote (651)	4/8/1999 9:59:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

<<I don't know if VLNC has anything going with Dell>> I know. Dell has nothing to do with the Valence stock fraud. <<but since VLNC is the only manufacturer that can, and is, producing LiPoly laptop batteries>> The Valence stock fraud is not producing batteries. It produces nothing except stock certificates.

To: golden_tee who wrote (651)	4/9/1999 2:46:00 PM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Respond to of 10293

Robert, > I don't know if VLNC has anything going with Dell, but since VLNC is the only manufacturer that can, and is, producing LiPoly laptop batteries, if Dell is going to offer LiPoly it would have to be VLNC. And I can tell you one thing from INSIDE the PC industry. There isn't a purchasing manager on the planet who would stake his product line's success on a component which: a) comes from an unproven manufacturer b) is so proprietary that there is no second source available in case of a problem, and comes from a manufacturer who only have a single plant Bottom line is we've all been burned too many times on that kind of issue. Toshiba's notebook business nearly got killed a few years ago because they jumped on the Lith-Ion technology all at once, only to find that they couldn't get enough batteries when the factory which produced 70% of the available capacity burned down. Motorola's Micro-Tac Elite and several of the early Star Tacs were pretty much destroyed by the same dependence on a single supplier. Everybody in semiconductors had problems a couple of years back, because a single plant, making a huge percentage of the ceramic packages used worldwide burned down. Rules these days are pretty simple: * Only buy from a manufacturer with proven capability of delivering everything you can possibly need, and then some. * Only buy from a manufacturer with multiple plants and the ability to sustain a significant percentage of manufacturing capacity if one of the plants goes off line for a time. * Unless absolutely necessary, only buy components which can be "second sourced" from an alternate manufacturer, or be easily replaced with a different component. ( The "absolutely necessary" category these days includes Intel processors and Microsoft operating systems. And even Intel has responded to industry concerns by building plants all over the world rather than relying primarily on the Rio Rancho NM site, as they did in the past.) So my question is simple. What is Valence doing to ensure that supply is not likely to be interrupted by a single point failure? Such as: * What manufacturing/licensing agreements will they put in place to ensure a second source for their unique and proprietary product? * What is the PROVEN capacity of the plant they have? (Not theoretical. Proven. ie: how many units have they been able to produce in a month up until now.) * What other contingencies are in place in case of a plant failure? As far as I can tell, they can't answer those questions. And they won't sell to any major PC manufacturer until they do. mg