|
|
|
|
Monday, December 23, 1996 Iomega was down $5/8 Friday, closing at $18 1/8 (-3.33%). TODAY'S RECAP: With no overriding news stories to guide their thoughts, contributors to our Iomega forum this weekend meandered aimlessly from post to post. If there was a favorite topic for discussion, it was the good old Zip vs. LS-120 debate, which is still raging since it flared up again four or five days ago. But one had to search through far more posts than usual to find a fresh angle or a new flash of insight. Santa is coming soon, Fools. Perhaps if we're all good boys and girls, he'll bring us some new topics to discuss by Christmas morning. INDEX: Use the Search or Find feature of your word processor to locate the article number (Find: 1++, 3++, etc.) -- or use AOL's Edit>>Find in Top Window Feature. If Find in Top Window is dimmed, just click on some text, anything, in the IOM Today window and try again.
1++JHenrie explains the usual procedures for accounting for rebates.
And now, the Best of the Board...Started 3 am ET 12/20/96. 1++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Re:Rebates and reserves Date: 96-12-20 06:17:37 EST From: JHenrie
Jim,
My expertise is in bank accounting but I think I can provide you some insight regarding the accounting treatment and purposes of reserves.
Banks are required to reserve for the risk of loss inherent in the loan portfolio. This figure is estimated based on, among other things, historical loss experience, the level of troubled credits, and current and projected economic conditions. The loan loss reserve is maintained through regular provisions that are expensed through the income statement. Unlike IOM' rebate reserve; however, provisions are not netted against loan interest income. Why? loan losses are not part of the contractual obligation. Despite what some people may believe, banks lend the money with the full intent of getting paid back.
With IOM's rebate program, IOM has an agreement to refund monies to individuals who submit the necessary information and form. Ultimately, the total amount of funds changing hands between IOM and the customer is the net of the sell price (what it gets from OEM, wholesalers, and retailers) and the rebate. That amount is the true revenue being generated; therefore, IOM is required to net rebates from revenues. The wild card in this situation is that not all rebates are returned for payment. Given this fact, accounting guidelines allow IOM to use IOM's historical experience and industry wide rebate return rates. Based on available information IOM has determined that the rebate return rate will be around the 50% mark. This is only an estimate that could be adjusted in the future if IOM experiences a higher return rate. Given the significant impact the rebate program could have on revenues, I assure you that the external auditors have and will continue to scrutinize the rebate program very closely.
To respond to some accusations that IOM is manipulating rebate provisions. The percent used to reserve for rebates must be signed off on before the external auditors will issue an unqualified opinion on the financial statements. An unqualified opinion basically states that they, the external auditors, did not find any material problems with IOM's accounting practices, including rebate provisions, and that the financial statements fairly represent the financial condition of the company. Also, to some peoples dismay, IOM can not delay provisions for rebates. The provisions are tied directly to sales based on the projected rebate return rate. For example, If IOM average rebate is $50 per zip drive, it expects that 50% will be redeemed, and it sold 2 million zips in the 4QTR, it would net $50 million out of revenues and add that amount to the reserve. They can't wait until the 1QTR97. They have to do it in the the quarter the drives are sold.
Accounting entries:
Income statement -- rebate reserve is netted against revenue and, ultimately, reduces net income.
Balance Sheet -- income has been reduced by the reserve but IOM has still received the cash. So if net income is, say, $30 million, IOM actually has $80 million coming in as cash, accounts receivable, etc (the rebates most likely won't be paid out for a while). So the balance sheet accounts of cash, A/R, etc. are credited for the full $80 million. However, capital is only credit for $30 million and the rebate reserve is credited for the remaining $50 million.
Hope this helps,
John 2++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: LS-120 in the news Date: 96-12-20 11:42:07 EST From: MF Jeanie
Just received by email, a story in today's Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minn.) Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News:
"High-Tech Firms Race to Create Successor to the Floppy Disk"
Due to copyright protection I cannot reproduce the story here. Suggest you do News Search under Imation, or Visit PioneerPlanet, the World Wide Web site of the Saint Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press, at http://www.pioneerplanet.com
It would seem the LS-120 public relations machinery has cranked up. Some highlights of the article:
<<Industry observers don't see the Zip technology disappearing -- it's far too entrenched -- but they speculate that the LS-120 may soon gain the upper hand.>>
<<"I'm positive the LS-120 has a good chance to take over (as the floppy's standard replacement)," said Phil Devin of San Jose-based Dataquest.>>
Reasons cited for optimism are price reductions and production ramp up.
<<Now, Imation and its LS-120 partners plan a flurry of advertising and "partner promotions" to sway key industry players.>>
Also mentions the Swan product as next to appear, although may be too late to market.
I would suggest further discussion of LS-120 take place after you've read the entire article.
Jeanie 3++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: LS-120 Victorious Date: 96-12-20 15:10:00 EST From: BBu84
When one is confronted with the rapturous and unbridled enthusiasm with which the posters on this board cling to the notion that the Zip drive will replace the floppy, one is most strongly shocked by their virtually complete dismissal of the LS-120 drive as a viable competitor. This is unfortunate, but hopefully I can remedy this egregious situation by bringing to their attention one rather large and undeniable fact. It is a fact which will demonstrate to even the most rabid Iomega believers that their faith is in vain.
While the LS-120 costs $50 to $100 more than the Zip and runs at only 40% of its speed, while after market buyers have no need for the 3.5 compatibility since they already have a 3.5 drive in their computers, while the LS-120 is OEMed only by Compaq when more than 10 computer makers sell the Zip, and while there is, as yet, no demonstrable consumer or business demand for the LS-120 drive at a time when the Zip has garnered millions of users and won widespread industry praise, the Zip is clearly doomed to failure in this race. Why? O.R. Technology and its partners have stated that they intend to produce LS-120 drives at the rate of 10,000 day in the coming year. The fact that they said this is undeniable, and to a reasonable person it is quite impressive, even awe-inspiring. With the LS-120 unarguably predestined-in several month's time-to production at the rate at which the Zip drive is currently selling, the unbiased, objective and disinterested observer such as myself understands that there is only one possible outcome: computer-manufacturers now OEMing the Zip will add the LS-120 to their lines to confuse their customers and lose market share while giving money away to Compaq, and they will very quickly do away with the Zip entirely so they can pay more for a slower drive which is incompatible with the millions of Zips already in use, and which virtually no one wants or needs in the first place. That this will happen is inevitable and inescapable, the indignant pooh-poohing of this board's Iomega boosters notwithstanding.
HYPSTERBONMOT 4++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: The LS-120 Ramp Date: 96-12-20 18:34:17 EST From: HYPEMENOT
Last night, Gar Shon posted the following:
<<< Interesting how several individuals keep harping on backward compatibility as the key issue which will decide whether the ZIP Drive or the LS-120 is adopted as a de facto standard. It seems that several million people dont seem to mind that the Zip cannot read 1.44" floppies. That over 10 major PC manufacturers dont seem to mind either and regularly highlight the fact that the ZIP Drive is included in their computers. I guess all these companies made their decision to go with Iomega because they were in mountains of Tibet and were unaware of this breakthrough technology that was going to read 1.44" floppies as well. Thats why the PC's that include the ZIP Drive are consistently among the best sellers at retail outlets. Iomega must have brainwashed the buying public as well about this revolutionary LS-120 technology. >>>
Interesting, Gar Shon. The only fact you left out of your discussion is this. The 10 OEMs which decided to offer Zip drives (most of which either opted to place them in only one or two models, or offer the Zip only as an option), all have one thing in common - they all made sure they INCLUDED a standard 1.44MB floppy drive in EVERY ONE of those machines (I confess that I dont know whether they reached that decision while still in Tibet, or after their return home).
Does this mean anything? Well, that depends on whether you apply NORMAL logic, or IOMEGAN logic. Under the latter, there is obviously no message to be gotten from the continued 100% inclusion of 1.44MB drives in machines that have a Zip. For the rest of us, who continue to labor under the rigors of plain old COMMON SENSE, it suggests that OEMs still universally agree that 1.44MB floppy drives are a necessity. That being the case, it just might be that a SINGLE drive (can you guess which one Gar Shon) which provides 120MB of storage on a single disk and that can also read/write to 1.44MB disks at 3X the speed of a conventional floppy drive, could prove to be very appealing to these same OEMs.
Of course, as I tried to indicate in a message posted yesterday, the case becomes far more compelling when this choice is made with respect to laptops. Here, the inclusion of BOTH a Zip AND a 1.44MB to do the work of a single drive with the capabilities of the LS-120 (Oops! Gar Shon, I meant to keep the answer a secret.) becomes far more problematic and, based on O.R. Technologys intention to offer the laptop version for $149.95 retail, more expensive to boot (no pun intended).
Why hasnt the LS-120 been adopted by OEMs (other than Compaq which obviously obtained preferential access to supply by signing on early) thus far? As discussed in the article quoted earlier today on the board, the fact is that the LS-120 simply wasnt available in substantial quantities until now. After all, its tough to seriously pursue OEMs until you can assure them that the product will be available in QUANTITY and, preferably from more than ONE SOURCE (which will shortly be the case when Mitsubishis production (announced last August) comes on stream in the very near future. Incidentally, the posts referring to 10,000 units a day are way below what has actually been announced. Kaifa Group alone, has said that it intends to ramp up to 10,000 units a day for the laptop version, while Panasonic has stated they will be ramping up to 500,000 units a month (16,000+ units a day) by midyear 1997. Mitsubishi has not publicly stated the quantity they expect to produce, but given their size and stature, it is likely to also be substantial.
My prediction is that we will soon see several OEMs offering machines that REPLACE the 1.44MB drive with the LS-120. And, dont be surprised if one or more of these OEMs are among those NOW offering the Zip drive. After all, what better way is there to test the market appeal of the LS-120 vs. the Zip?
HYPEMENOT 5++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Booting Date: 96-12-20 20:06:47 EST From: Kevinfurr
>> The 10 OEMs which decided to offer Zip drives.... all have one thing in common - they all made sure they INCLUDED a standard 1.44MB floppy drive in EVERY ONE of those machines<<
Hypemenot, the OEM's had to offer floppies for one reason, anyway: bootability. The scene may change in the near future (I'm not sure exactly when), as American Megatrends is providing an AMI Bios chip that supports Zip bootability, and Phoenix is providing a chip supporting Zip, LS-120, and other drives.
OEM's won't drop the floppy as soon as the IDE-bootable Zip becomes available of course. Because OEM's are grindingly slow to react, and because floppy drives are $15 - $20, cheap. Nevertheless many people won't need that floppy drive anymore--I won't--and that may be an important factor in how this thing shapes up. 6++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: End of an era Date: 96-12-21 00:35:46 EST From: Kevinfurr
Seeing the reports of zero-net-cost rebate for floppy disks, I took a good look around CompUSA and Computer City. Though I didn't see the "free" floppies here, this is what I did see: Every single brand without exception, and virtually every disk package, sports a rebate. Factoring in the rebates, the net cost per floppy disk ranged from 10 cents for the reliable Verbatim, to 30 cents for the overpriced and error-prone Imations. (If you've ever used 3M disks, chances are good you know what I'm talking about.) That's a low of 10 cents per disk, in small enough quantities to hold the package in one hand, to the retail end-user.
Most rebates were offered through some time in '97; the newer Sony packages advertise that the rebate is extended to some time in 1998. (They expect the package to sit on the shelf for 14 months?)
What's it all mean. Doesn't take Isaac Newton to realize that something costing 10 cents is very close to something costing nothing. And something that costs nothing is, by definition, worthless. I'm quite sure if you were to graph single-disk prices over the past couple of years, it would show a curve noticeably descending toward zero. As the technical trader says, what's the market telling us? Floppies are worthless to me, of course, but they are also approaching worthlessness in the retail market. (When Computer City clerks offer me the free floppy disk, I decline. How's that for worthless?)
Almost-free raw material may sound good to a VAR with a device driver (like Mr. McConnathy) but surely there's a problem here, because I don't recall seeing too many free things selling in stores in my lifetime. And there must be a reason in the mind of the consumer that these disks have almost no value.
One problem floppy vendors will face is shelf space. In the past you could buy just a 10-pack of floppies. Those are rare now, because to make the economic transaction worthwhile floppies are now sold in bulk packages of 30, 40, 50, 100, and more. There's a limit to this--let's project trends out a little: is CompUSA going to devote shelf space to something the size of an oven, a huge mega-pack of hundreds of floppies, that offers only a dollar in margin? Not if they're smart. But that's where the trend is taking us.
And just when we're seeing a glut of cheap disks collecting dust, every quarter a significant number of people buy Zip drives, and so those people (based on anecdotal experience) may never buy floppies again.
Integrated silicon circuits made transistors individually worthless; but transistors survive because they're useful in fingernail-sized packages of hundreds of thousands. You can buy Intel's newest 5-million pack of transistors, no rebate.
But floppy disks are only shrinking in usefulness, not size, and that's a problem. They're approaching extinction. Maybe not absolute extinction, considering that some stores still sell 5 1/4" disks, and 360 kilobyte 5 1/4" drives. BUT, backward compatibility for these dinosaurs is not an issue. How long should it remain an issue in PC's, in an era of such advances as sophisticated BIOS chips, Universal Serial Bus, bloated 32-bit software, internet downloads and email, and universally installed CD-ROM's? 7++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: HYPEMENOT question Date: 96-12-21 21:49:18 EST From: BBu84
HYPEMENOT,
The information your have provided regarding the LS-120 drive is very much appreciated. Since you seem so knowledgeable by the LS-120 and so confident about its ability to compete successfully with the Zip drive, I was wondering if you could answer a few questions for me.
To begin with, among all the millions of people who currently own computers for their businesses and homes, who among them will want the LS-120? Since the LS-120's only real advantage over the Zip that I can see is the inclusion of a 3.5 drive, who among these computers owners who already have the 3.5 drive will want a second one? Can you think of one good reason why a person would want two 3.5 drives? I don't see any current aftermarket demand for this drive and I cannot see one developing in the future, but maybe you see something I don't.
You note that the manufacturers who currently OEM the Zip also include the 3.5 in their computers as well. You draw attention to this fact as though it validates the dual compatibility of the LS-120 as a selling point. Maybe it is. Obviously the 3.5 is still being used, but less and less as time goes on. About a year ago Microsoft closed down the local plant which put their software on 3.5 disks. Check the papers-you can get 3.5 disks for next to nothing, and in some cases you can get them just for the asking. The way I see it the computer manufactures who are now OEMing the Zip could continue to offer the 3.5 drive in their machines until such time as the 3.5 is as dead as the 5 inch disk, and I presume they could do this for the same price or even less it would cost them to include just the LS-120. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. The only other issue that would come up would be the additional space taken up by having both the Zip and the 3.5 in one computer. But is this as big an issue as some people have made it out to be? I honestly don't know so please enlighten me. Is it such a big deal that it would justify putting in a slower drive that potentially costs more than the Zip and 3.5 combined and for which there is no observable consumer demand?
As far as actually using the LS-120 drive, I don't see what its big claim to fame is. Sure it is two drives in one, but as I understand it, you cannot use both the LS-120 and the 3.5 at the same time. In other words, if you wanted to copy 3.5 disks onto an LS-120 disk, you would have to either copy all of the 3.5 disks onto your hard drive, take out the last 3.5 disk and insert a LS-120 disk to copy all the files from the hard drive, or you would have to put a 3.5 disk in, copy it, take it out, put in the LS-120 disk, paste the files onto it, take it out, put in the next 3.5 disk in, copy it, take out the 3.5 disk, put the LS-120 disk in, paste the files onto it, take it out, and so on and so forth through the next 80 3.5 disks. As a comparison, you can run information directly from the 3.5 disk drive to the Zip drive in all of the Zip-equipped computers that are currently offered by OEMs. And although I can't imagine it happening anytime soon (Cisco server excepted), if a Zip OEM was brash enough to offer a unit without any 3.5 drive, a user who suddenly needed it could rummage around in his/her change jar to come up with the $30 to pick up an external 3.5 drive.
If it does turn out that 3.5 compatibility is not the wondrous selling point that some people would make it out to be, are there ANY advantages the LS-120 has over the Zip? It is slower by about half, and it is higher priced, even if you add the cost of the 3.5 drive in-again, correct me if I'm wrong on this. The mechanism is more complicated and thus, I would think, more prone to failure. There is contact between the heads and the media, whereas the Zip has floating heads. While I am not thoroughly knowledgeable about the technology, doesn't this indicate that there is more wear and tear on the LS-120 disk when you work with it?
In its favor, LS-120 media is supposed to be more stable over the long term than the magnetic Zip disk, with an expected lifetime of 30 years versus 10 years (?). The LS-120 does hold 20 mb more, but I don't think anyone would describe this as much of an advantage, especially if a faster 200 mb Zip is on the way. Of course, you have pointed out that there will be compatibility problems between current Zips and the rumored 200 mb Zip, and the n.hand. This is an important issue and will merit attention as more information becomes available. What's important to note here is that the LS-120 will never be compatible with the n.hand, which could be a big disadvantage, and it will never have any kind of compatibility with the millions of Zips already in use. In short, I don't see any real selling points of the LS-120 when compared with the Zip-but feel free to set me straight.
It seems clear that there is no aftermarket need/demand for the LS-120, which leaves the computer makers. Why would computer manufacturers want to include a slow, unknown LS-120 drive in their computers rather than the popular Zip and a 3.5? Please explain this to me. And why would a manufacturers which currently OEMs the Zip want to offer a competing drive in their line? Would it cost them less to include the LS-120 in a computer in place of the Zip and 3.5, and would this computer sell better? Would it sell better?-ah, there's the rub. Where is the consumer demand for a Johnny-come-lately drive that is slower than and incompatible with a Zip? Apart from the over-hyped bully-boy talk of O.R. Technology, their manufacturing cohorts, and not a few shorts, I don't see the demand for this product. As a computer-using consumer, I simply don't see the desirability of it when compared with the Zip. Compaq has sold the LS-120s for months - has their experience demonstrated a frothing, rabid demand for this product?
No one doubts that the LS-120 can be slapped together by the thousands each and every day by companies which haven't done any marketing homework. The real question is this: will the drives be purchased by the thousands every day as the Zip is now? Looking forward to your answers... Brooks
P.S. A few months ago you were gushing over a positive article about a SyQuest drive. A few months hence are you going to be singing the praises of the ugly duckling Frankensteinian monstrosity Swan drive? 8++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: LS-120 backers, agree w/this Date: 96-12-22 01:29:39 EST From: CayugaDan
This one is for LS-120 backers:
We've been hearing for a few months that the LS-120 would be adopted by some OEMs besides Compaq. Perhaps this will still happen, perhaps it will not. I believe this was promised for 1996.
Don't you agree that if by, say February, 1. we see no more OEMs for the LS-120 and if 2. iomega continues to add OEMs and models to existing OEMs,
that LS-120 will have lost its chance for widespread acceptance?
-Dan (if not, at what point does lack of OEMs kill LS-120) 9++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Re:Unhelpful Salespeople Date: 96-12-22 12:33:13 EST From: MF KarenK
I read an interesting article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer (business section) entitled "The Advice of Salespeople very often fails to compute". The article talks about the fact the "retail experts" can't agree on just how many people (millions or hundreds of thousands) are in the market for computer products this season. It goes on to say that many of the salespeople are not very well informed. Later, it gives an example of a family who wanted to buy a storage device for their computer because the hard drive was jammed. The salesman never asked how much they wanted to spend, what kind of system they had or why they needed extra space. Instead, he "described various esoteric optical and tape storage devices, all expensive and complicated to install. The family gave up, walking away looking rather dazed, though the woman glanced longingly at the pack of of Zip drive disks I had in my hand." The author continues to describe the benefit of Zip along with the inexpensive price and concludes "Maybe that would have solved their problem, but the word 'Zip' never crossed the salesman lips."
Informative article which questions the knowledge of some computer salespeople.
Karen.... PS Merry Christmas and Happy and healthy New Year to everyone here!! :-) 10++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Re:The LS-120 Ramp Date: 96-12-22 22:47:35 EST From: DILLIGF
A number of interesting posts concerning Mitsubishi and the LS120 ramp; however, since it is the time of year in which many take comfort in stories told I will tell a story. For those who believe find for those who choose not to well they surely must believe in the good fairies. For those who study history the name INSITE will be familiar and for those who have no clue, you really should study a little history. Insite was the initial developer of the floptical technology. This technology in its crudest form first showed its face in the late 80's with great fanfare as the solution to maintaining backward compatibility as well as setting the next standard. At the time the capacity was 18mbs if my memory serves me correctly. After Io came on board as co-developer the capacity of the first commercial product was increased to 21mbs. Io pumped many dollars into the development of this product and over a period of years through licensing amendments and patented improvements gained the technological position of controlling the next generation of floptical which today is know as the LS120. Imation has spent little on the development of this product.
But back to the story with the initial commercial product's design locked up. Insite contracted with Mitsubishi to manufacture the floptical drives and Io contracted with Chinnon to manufacture their version. Both Io and Insite faced the same problem how do you ramp production and increase demand by lowering costs. Now IO had substantial working capital but Io was smart enough not to bet the ranch on the floptical by subsidizing the cost of production. However, in the case of Insite it did not have the capital to subsidize the cost in the first place nor did have sufficient capital to meet the terms of the Mitsubishi production contract. Mitsubishi being the wise old corporate trader that it is refused to ship any drives to Insite for which it first was not paid for. In addition, Insite had the problem of funding the float for the drives that they did ship about 90 days worth.
Insite went out of business and its assets were acquired by OR Tech. Of course, since OR Tech is not subject to the fraud laws in this country it can just about make any comment it wishes. However, it is very interesting to note that Imation always quotes OR Tech as a source for its more interesting comments.
The moral of this story and the bottom line unless the basic corporate business practices of Mitsubishi have totally changes. Is as follows: There will be no 10,000 or 16,000 units a day of production unless Imation agrees to pay the cost of production upfront and Compaq were to guarantee such a contract commit. Someone has to demonstrate that the capital cost for creating the manufacturing infrastructure has been funded. Then maybe this story may have a different outcome. 11++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Re:The LS-120 Ramp Date: 96-12-22 23:27:46 EST From: HYPEMENOT
DILLIGF just posted a lengthy story about the history of the development of the floptical, the point of which, I guess, is that OR Technology is not to be trusted, and Mitsubishi isn't about to enter into size production unless all sorts of guarantees are forthcoming from other members of the LS-120 development group. Well DILLIGF, I have some questions/observations about much of what you posted.
<<< Imation has spent little on the development of this product.>>>
To my knowledge, there is no public information from which the above conclusion can be drawn. Therefore, what is the basis for this statement?
<<< Insite went out of business and its assets were acquired by OR Tech. Of course, since OR Tech is not subject to the fraud laws in this country it can just about make any comment it wishes. However, it is very interesting to note that Imation always quotes OR Tech as a source for its more interesting comments.>>>
I just checked OR Technology's web site. They are a U.S. Corporation, chartered in Delaware. I'm not a corporate lawyer, but what is the basis for your statement that OR Tech is not subject to the fraud laws in this country and can just about make any comment it wishes. If that is true of them, then it must be true of every other U.S. Corporation, including Iomega.
<<< The moral of this story and the bottom line unless the basic corporate business practices of Mitsubishi have totally changes. Is as follows: There will be no 10,000 or 16,000 units a day of production unless Imation agrees to pay the cost of production upfront and Compaq were to guarantee such a contract commit. Someone has to demonstrate that the capital cost for creating the manufacturing infrastructure has been funded. Then maybe this story may have a different outcome.>>>
DILLIGF, this last paragraph really takes the cake. Why even dwell on whether there is any substance to your contention here. It isn't Mitsubishi that announced it was ramping up to 16,000 units a day its PANASONIC (MKE). They only happen to be the current sole manufacturer of the LS-120, and one of the founding members of the LS-120 development group. No doubt, given enough time, you'll dream up some scenario to prove why Panasonic is lying.
BTW, before you do that, why don't you dream up a PROFILE, so that serious participants can make some judgments about where your coming from and why you are so willing to post these groundless conclusions.
HYPEMENOT 12++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Re:The LS-120 Ramp Date: 96-12-22 23:56:58 EST From: Kevinfurr
Dilligf: Extremely perceptive post! The same thoughts have been buzzing in my head lately, I'm glad you put it in words.
>> Insite contracted with Mitsubishi to manufacture the floptical drives and Io contracted with Chinnon to manufacture their version. <<
I do have a dusty piece of lore in which analyst look optimistically to Iomega's contract with floppy-maker Chinon for the "new" floptical drives. At the time Iomega was less reticent in talking about it's future...
>> Mitsubishi being the wise old corporate trader that it is refused to ship any drives to Insite for which it first was not paid for. <<
Another old article I have speaks of the inability of the members of the "floptical association" to ship product, VAR's and Iomega arguing over whether IOM was actually shipping any, even as demand was dissipating before their eyes. By this time (early 94) Ocean Radio had bought out Insite, and was shipping drives again--in fact I believe OR flopticals have actually been available in the Pacific Rim ever since--but the opportunity was lost.
>> since OR Tech is not subject to the fraud laws in this country it can just about make any comment it wishes. <<
Those who keep touting the LS-120 camp's statements about manufacturing in mass quantities and OEM's, those are slippery things. I seem to recall references to "capacity" rather than output; and OEM statements hinting at manufacturing partners more than actual customers. 13++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Subj: Re:The LS-120 Ramp Date: 96-12-23 00:36:35 EST From: Kevinfurr
>> I just checked OR Technology's web site. They are a U.S. Corporation, chartered in Delaware. I'm not a corporate lawyer, but what is the basis for your statement that OR Tech is not subject to the fraud laws in this country <<
OR has pitched a tent in California. But the mother ship is Ocean Radio Group, a foreign multinational conglomerate based in Singapore, whose computer peripherals division probably still sells the old 21 mb floptical under the Easystor brand name, last I checked.
>> If that is true of them, then it must be true of every other U.S. Corporation, including Iomega. <<
HYPEMENOT, I believe publicly traded companies tend to be more circumspect in what they say than are privately owned companies (well, except for IAUS). Shareholder lawsuits being what they are in a litigious society, where any jerk out there might own 100 shares of your company.
Also, I can't speak for the inscrutable DILLIGF, but I've been thinking much the same thing: the two *publicly-traded* U.S companies with some kind of stake in the LS are Imation and (to a lesser degree) Compaq. The main big foreign companies involved are Ocean Radio and MKE. Perhaps someone would like to analyze the public statements about the LS-120 and its ramp from IMN and CPQ, vis-a-vis the statements coming from the foreign companies.
End Report. Posts covered through 3 am ET 12/1/96. _______________________________
WE
DELIVER - Get IOM
In Fooldom Today delivered
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
