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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MileHigh who wrote (21725)	6/5/1999 12:53:00 AM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

great analysis on the thread today... It is indicative of the FUD that after a while you begin to question everything you once knew to be true. I have tried over the past few months to read as much about memory technologies as a dumb layman can and I still have to come back to the same questions Mile asked earlier: 1. If RDRAM is not the technology of the future, why would a company as dynamic, as wealthy and as driven as Intel remain so devoted to not only its adoption but its success? Surely not the paltry millions it will receive from the warrants. 2. If RDRAM is slower, more expensive, less tested and more troubled, why would a truly independent firm like Sony bet its primary source of new product revenues on it? And commit substantial sums to Toshiba's fab production to ensure product availability. This is the smartest consumer electronics firm in history - do they know something? 3. If RDRAM was really not a threat why are all the chipmakers making the shift to its production? If DDRDRAM was a viable, solid long term alternative wouldn't some of the fabs be making the same kind of heavy investment in that technology that Samsung has made in RDRAM? And don't tell me that all the DRAM makers are really playing both sides of the fence - there are too many millions of dollars being spent on new production lines and testing equipment for RDRAM. These companies need to recoup that investment,and the only way they will by producing Rambus product. 4. Does anyone really believe that it will be "o.k." to operate at existing speeds in the future? The argument that Rambus is not really faster than the present alternatives begs the real question - Rambus is scaleable and, to my knowledge, no other technology has even projected such a capability. To what extent it is scaleable none of us know, but I bet Intel has a good idea and its future microprocessors will be expecting to utilize that capability. The software (voice recognition, streaming data, total business conferencing)will follow shortly thereafter. 5. It is only logical that every vested interest which cannot directly benefit from RDRAM will oppose it. There are fortunes to be made and lost here, as there is in any technological change. The FUD is so thick that it almost makes your head hurt. What is amazing is how untruthful some of these pronouncements have come to be. Why is this necessry if, in truth, other technologies are superior? To battle the evil empire of INTEL? To protect the masses? NO, to protect self-interest. 6. Frankly, even if Rambus is not the superior technology it has all the right friends. Believe me, that counts for a lot in a tough race.