Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That’s funny stuff!
I have a very simple method for dealing with telemarketers: when I pick up the phone, if there’s even the slightest hesitation, I hang up. It seems telemarketers (including cold-calling stockbrokers) use an autodial system and they get on the line only after someone picks up.
This method really works – I haven’t had to speak to a telemarketer in months. FWIW. Dew
PR on ceramic filters, which is another one of GLW’s growing non-telecom businesses:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030113/132561_1.html
PC World article on Astro and Banias, er, Centrino:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1093&e=4&cid=1093&u=/pcworld/200301...
Mostly a fluff piece (an example of why I stopped subscribing to PC World). But there is this amusing quote:
“Transmeta is counting on Intel's larger marketing budget to lead the way in continuing to educate buyers that GHz isn't everything,”
>> I agree with your assessment about Corning except I don't think it is all that speculative at this point. I think we can view what has happened as a particularly vicious business cycle which has now bottomed. GLW's survival seems assured, and its businesses are diversified and growing. <<
rapoole: It’s a matter of degree. I concur that GLW’s survival is no longer in doubt. (However, the market doesn’t yet fully understand this, so there is still upside to the stock as this becomes more widely known.) However, GLW’s ability to be *consistently* profitable is somewhat in doubt even now.
When I said I considered GLW “moderate-to-high-risk,” I was measuring GLW against steady-earning companies which you can buy and forget about. Compared to other large tech companies, GLW is not all that risky because its modest valuation does not assume a great deal of top-line growth. Regards, Dew
Corning Inc.'s flat-panel glass sales soar
http://www.stargazette.com/headlines/Molocal2.html
[Note: The Star Gazette is a regional newspaper in Corning/Elmira, NY, which is one of the best sources of info on the company – Dew]
>>
At this rate, the product could become the company's top seller in two years.
By LARRY WILSON
Star-Gazette Corning Bureau
lwilson@stargazette.com
CORNING -- Explosive growth in demand for products with liquid crystal displays could make Corning Inc.'s flat-panel glass the company's best-selling product in as little as two years.
Although the Fortune 500 company's 2002 financial results won't be announced until later this month, revenue from flat-panel glass is expected to total nearly $430 million. That's a 33 percent increase from $323 million in 2001.
Two more years of growth at the same rate would push sales of the glass -- used in laptop and desktop computers and liquid crystal display televisions -- to more than $760 million annually.
If optical fiber and cable sales continue to decline -- they are expected to total less than $1 billion for 2002 -- flat-panel glass could eventually become the company's top seller.
Two trends -- the replacement of cathode-ray tube desktop computer monitors by flat-panel displays and the increasing popularity of flat-panel televisions -- are driving up demand for Corning's glass.
Donald McNaughton, the company's vice president of information display, said about 100 million desktop computer monitors are sold annually.
"In 2002, 25 percent of those were LCD (flat-panel displays)," McNaughton said. "About 175 million color TVs are sold each year. In 2002, 1 percent of those were LCD."
Soon, the number of flat-panel desktop monitors sold each year will exceed the number of conventional monitors, McNaughton said.
"Not this year, but very shortly," he said.
The flat-panel television market, which is still small because of high prices, is on the verge of exploding, according to market research firm DisplaySearch in Austin, Texas. DisplaySearch said sales of the liquid crystal display televisions grew 113 percent in 2002 and will increase 182 percent in 2003.
DisplaySearch predicts unit sales of flat-panel liquid crystal display TVs will soar from 1.2 million in 2002 to more than 16.1 million by 2006.
In addition, flat-panel televisions are getting larger, which increases the demand for the glass panels between which the complex electronics are installed.
Corning Inc. produces flat-panel glass in sheets as large as 1.1-by-1.2 meters and has plans for sheets up to 2 meters square.
"Large sheets are much more efficient," McNaughton said. "Six different desktop monitors can be made from one sheet."
Peter L. Bocko, technology director for the flat-panel business, said the ability to make larger sizes of glass is the key to cost competitiveness in the industry. But the larger sizes also come with their own technical problems.
"Surface quality becomes more important," Bocko said. "You can't afford to throw out any of those panels."
Competitors enter growing market
A few years ago, no one thought liquid crystal display screens were practical in large sizes. Now, television manufacturers are planning flat-panel screens of 50 inches or more in diameter. One of the first to hit the market later this year will be a 52-inch model from LG Philips. Philips also plans to ship a 42-inch flat-panel television in the second half of 2003.
Prior to the Philips announcement, the largest liquid crystal display television was Samsung Electronics' 46-inch prototype, unveiled last October.
The rapid growth in the desktop computer monitor and flat-panel television markets is good news for Corning Inc., but creates its own challenges.
"This is getting pretty big, but managing the growth going forward is going to be a challenge," McNaughton said.
The company's five factories -- one each in the United States, Japan and Taiwan and two in Korea -- are expected to add capacity as the market expands. McNaughton doesn't think any new factories will be necessary.
McNaughton hopes the price of liquid crystal display televisions will decline, as did the price of flat-panel computer monitors. Existing flat-panel TVs, ranging in size from 22 inches to 40 inches, sell for $3,000 to $10,000.
"We do need the prices of LCD TV to drop," he said.
Price declines are part of the reason that Corning's flat-panel glass revenue went up 33 percent in 2002 while the volume of glass sold increased 50 percent.
"As we all gain in volume, costs do come down," McNaughton said. "We have to continue to do that."
The exploding market for flat-panel glass is attracting new competitors into the market. The latest is German glassmaker Schott Corp. Corning's other major competitors are Japanese -- Asahi Glass, Nippon Electric Glass (NEG) and NH Techno Glass.
"We are still the world's largest (flat) glass provider," McNaughton said. "Any market this attractive will have competitors eyeing it."
Helping Corning through a 'rough spot'
While most of the demand for flat-panel glass is driven by computer monitors and televisions, new devices such as tablet PCs are beginning to have an impact, Bocko said.
"It's not just about one type of application," Bocko said.
The top priority in the flat-panel glass business for 2003 will be finding ways to cut manufacturing costs, Bocko said.
"We've been very successful in keeping cost-reduction activities ahead of customer expectation," he said.
In addition, researchers will continue to work on improving the quality of the glass surface.
"There's more push for higher-quality surfaces with uniform thickness and stability," Bocko said.
Despite the bright prospects for the flat-panel glass business, McNaughton tempers his enthusiasm with restraint.
"We know that things don't grow forever," he said. "We want to strike a good balance between realism and opportunity. We're here to help the company through a rough spot."
Sales climbing
Sales of Corning Inc. flat-panel glass for liquid crystal displays:
2002
First quarter -- $93 million
Second quarter -- $102 million
Third quarter -- $106 million
Fourth quarter (Est.) -- $129 million
Total 2002 (Est.) -- $430 million
2001
First quarter -- $62 million
Second quarter -- $87 million
Third quarter -- $79 million
Fourth quarter -- $95 million
Total 2001 -- $323 million
<<
>> Not only that, but I think the moderator on that thread is a few sandwiches short of a picnic, if you know what I mean. <<
Hadn’t heard that one before. Must be gearhead lingo
[OT] Corning (GLW)
wbmw: GLW’s balance sheet is much better than it appears to be. There are several reasons for this:
o GLW recently sold a minor division (the one making lenses for projection TV’s) to 3M for $825M in cash. The balance sheet you have seen does not contain these proceeds.
o GLW has been buying back its own debt on the open market at a steep discount to par. If this continues, the debt will be substantially reduced in another quarter or two. (Unfortunately, to the extent that investors perceive that GLW’s prospects have brightened, the debt will no longer be so darned cheap to buy back.)
o The overwhelming majority of out-of-pocket costs related to plant closures and severance has already been taken. (A large writedown of goodwill will be taken in 4Q02, but this is a non-cash item).
o The next significant debt maturity is more than 2-1/2 years away (and this debt can be repaid in shares if the stock price is high enough to make that an attractive option).
As far as earnings are concerned, things are also somewhat better than they seem going forward. With most of the cash charges for “restructuring” out of the way, the company should be EBITDA-positive fairly soon, even without a strong recovery in the telecom sector. GLW’s non-telecom segments -- LCD glass, ceramic filters, and life-science materials – are profitable and growing nicely.
Of course, GLW remains a moderate-to-high-risk play. A lot of the “easy money” has already been made since last fall (ka-ching). But I’m holding a core (non-trading) position on the expectation of the stock’s trading at 3-4X its current level by 2005. Moreover, if telecom should come back more quickly than anticipated, those price levels could be realized substantially sooner.
Last but not least, GLW’s management is squeaky clean, and insiders have recently bought a boatload of shares at $3+. Regards, Dew
[OT] Wild ride for Corning:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=670422
GLW is:
· +36% in 2003
· +45% in last 8 trading days (since 12/30/02)
· +310% since October low
And the fun has only just begun (IMO).
>> In terms of mobile designers, they are more interested in price, rather than cost <<
I think we are talking about the same thing: INTC’s price becomes the OEM’s cost.
>> the price of Centrino components are likely to be in a range equal to that of the Pentium 4-M, which has allowed systems to be designed starting as low as $1200 - mainstream for the laptop market. <<
That’s the rub: there will be a lot of demand for mobile-computing products which sell for less than $1,200. Regards, Dew
>> You poo-poo Intel's marketing campaign, but you fail to realize that the $300M spent is exactly what will guarantee Centrino's success [emphasis added by Dew]. <<
Not sure I would know how to poo-poo even if I wanted to Seriously, the $300M might be money well-spent – or it might not be. My point is that the OEMs are quite capable of making up their own minds about which CPU to use, and no amount of promotional money is going to brainwash them into choosing any particular brand.
>> [cost, form factor, power consumption, heat] …Centrino seems to address these issues in spades.<<
I have to disagree on the all-important cost metric. From information published to date, Centrino is most definitely not a low-cost alternative for the designers of mobile-computing devices. Regards, Dew
Reminder to 119 re TC1000:
Happy Hour is in effect from now through the weekend. Looking forward to your comments. Dew
An illuminating interview, especially with regards to the plans (or lack thereof) for SOI. Thanks for posting. Dew
So you believe the game between Centrino and TMTA’s Astro is over before the first pitch has even been thrown? That’s the kind of arrogance that gets people in trouble in sports – and sometimes in business too.
>> The buzz over TMTA is gone… I haven't seen a word about Astro since their demonstration several months ago, and that's not a particularly good sign. <<
According to published reports, INTC has spent $300M (!) on marketing costs alone to promote Centrino. Hence it’s hardly surprising that people – even the knowledgeable readers of this MB – would be going ga-ga over Centrino right about now.
You have not heard much about TMTA’s Astro lately because there is nothing else to say about Astro until the specs are formally announced this spring. When that happens, the buzz about Astro will be loud enough to be more than a little irritating to INTC boosters.
In the meantime, OEMs are not basing their design decisions on the size of INTC’s marketing budget. By gosh, OEMs also care about cost, form factor, power consumption, heat – i.e. the specs that will make consumers actually have a reason for wanting to buy their computers.
>> I think [TMTA] will get eaten alive, and it won't take long for them to run out of money in their current state. <<
wbmw: you and the others here talk a big game – as though INTC’s large market cap entitles you to boast about your investing prowess. If INTC is such a charm and TMTA is such a dog, why isn’t anyone here willing to bet me a measly $130 lifetime iHUB membership on which company will do better in the stock market during the next two years? Regards, Dew
>> There is nothing illegal with branding a platform <<
wbmw: These matters come in shades of gray. If INTC sets an onerous price for the CPU-only component of Centrino relative to the price of the entire Centrino bundle (including chipsets and WiFi), it could be construed as “product tying.” Would that be grounds for legal action? Not likely, but possible.
BTW: I read that INTC reserved a second trademark along with Centrino (can’t recall the name), which might be a backup plan should the Centrino bundling encounter excessive flak from OEMs.
>> I'm betting that Centrino takes the mobile market by storm. I'm no longer sure there's much left for TMTA at this point. <<
I can’t see how the competitive posture of TMTA has changed for the worse from a few months ago, when you decided to buy some TMTA. Regards, Dew
>> I would also assume that Intel's legal department gave this a thorough going over before blessing it off. <<
EP: I would also assume that Microsoft’s legal department gave Internet Explorer a thorough going over before blessing it off as a built-in component of Windows.
More on Centrino:
[From Thursday’s WSJ, page A3]:
“But companies that don’t take all of the [Centrino] products from Intel can't use the Centrino trademark. In fact, if they use only the microprocessor chip… they have to use the name Pentium M…”
--
Is this a brilliant marketing strategy, or is it a reckless maneuver which might attract the attention of the FTC for unlawful “product tying” of the CPU with the rest of the Centrino products?
Barrett: Intel to launch Centrino in March
[Thanks to tmta_playa on the Yahoo MB]:
http://www.ebnews.com/showArticle?articleID=5700147
Jack Robertson
01/09/2003 9:30 PM EST
Las Vegas -- Intel Corp. CEO Craig Barrett in his Thursday keynote address to the Consumer Electronics Show disclosed that Centrino, the firm's next-generation mobile processor and chipsets, will be launched officially in March.
Previously, Intel only said Centrino, formerly code-named Banias, would be unveiled in the first half of 2003. Barrett told CES that the first version of Centrino will support 820.11b WiFi wireless connectivity, and a dual version including 802.11a will debut in Q2'03.
Before Barrett's keynote speech, an Intel official said the dual WiFi Centrino configuration is to avoid the confusion of having two separate 802.11 versions in the market. Donald MacDonald, marketing director of the mobile platform group, said in the future Intel will have an 802.11g Centrino version when that standard is finally adopted.
He said unlike many leading edge product launches which start with high-end versions initially, Centrino mobile PCs will debut in all price points right from the beginning. He said tablet PC makers are also expected to use Centrino. "We will see Centrino in some server blades, although I'm not sure if they will be part of the launch," he added.
EP: if there were a reco feature on iHUB, I would have used it for some of your recent posts.
The easy money shorting techs has already been made. I tend to be too early in my decisions (closed out my last shorts in the mid-2002 and missed the tech swoon in the second half), but I’d rather be too early than too late.
I consider your “best case” for INTC (up single-digit % in 2003) to be the most-likely case. I expect INTC to under-perform the broad market and most tech small-caps, but there is no disaster looming.
I actually find a lot of the doom-and-gloom predictions quite amusing. That’s because I am old enough to have been an investor during past bear markets, and a lot of the stuff being written today is almost a verbatim copy of what I recall reading in 1974 and 1982. FWIW. Dew
TMTA webcast at Needham Technology conference:
http://www.twst.com/econf/mm/needham3/tmta.html
It runs about 25 minutes. Although nothing really new was announced, the webcast is an excellent overview of what TMTA is doing and hopes to accomplish in 2003.
Forbes on the semiconductor nuclear winter/spring:
[Sounds like the nuclear winter has ended but spring has not exactly started. Sort of like “mud season” –Dew]
http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/02/cx_ah_0102chips_print.html
>>
If you think of 2001 as the year of the chip industry's worst hangover ever, then 2002 will go down as the year the aspirin finally kicked in. For its part, the coming year looks like it'll be the one during which recovery will finally become apparent.
The worst part about curing a hangover is simply waiting for it to end--a feeling with which chip company investors and executives are familiar. The persistent question has been when the recovery will start, and every tentative statistic has fueled cause for hope.
At least the freefall is over. After global sales contracted by nearly one-third in 2001, market research firm iSuppli of El Segundo, Calif., says the chip industry will finish 2002 with a scant 1.5% sales growth. It isn't much, but we'll take it.
"People have been using the word 'recovery' all year," says iSuppli analyst Dale Ford. "My favorite word this year has been stabilization." Selling prices have stopped falling like a skydiver waiting to open his parachute. And in the final quarters of the year, revenue started to show modest growth.
What's more, growth should get healthier next year. Ford says he's forecasting 11.8% sales growth for 2003 across the chip industry. Yet even with that growth, sales will be below the overheated levels of 2000.
Even with the market down, four chip companies showed an average sales growth in 2002 of 30%--and all are poised to continue to ride that momentum into 2003. They are graphics chipmaker Nvidia, wireless chip concern Qualcomm and memory chipmakers Micron Technology and Infineon.
Nvidia has been riding the success of its PC graphics chips among the hard-core gaming market. It also scored a design win with Microsoft's Xbox, which has been a more muted success. It has a new heavy-duty graphics chip, the GeForce FX, due in early 2003.
In the graphics chip business Nvidia has done something unusual: It remained the king of the technological hill for two generations. "Usually one company is on top for awhile until a new company comes with new technology and takes the perch for itself. Nvidia has managed to stay on top," Ford says. Sales of its PC graphics chipsets coupled with sales of Microsoft's Xbox videogame system, which contains an Nvidia graphics chip, spurred it to realize sales growth of nearly 40%.
Memory chipmakers Micron and Infineon are likely to see sales tick up this year as the corporate IT market starts to hum back to life. After years of putting off their upgrades, businesses will likely start facing up to the fact that they need to upgrade at least some of their PCs. "We see the corporate IT upgrade cycle kicking in again," Ford says.
Renewed PC buying will also give some help to Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, though the price wars those two have fought against each other over the last year will limit the positive effect on their bottom lines. AMD in particular is having a hard time weathering the downturn, and in the last year has ceded back much of the market share it took from Intel in the previous two years.
The other bright spot is likely to be wireless gear. Investors have been bellyaching about the downturn in wireless phone sales. Ford says improvements in that market are underway--good news for Qualcomm, which has seen its sales pick up by nearly 33% from a year ago as shipments of phones that use its CDMA 2000 1X technology pick up.
"I think there's some health coming back to the wireless phone business," he says. "We'll finish this year with about 390 million phones sold, and I don't think it's unrealistic that we can reach 475 million next year."
But the long-term growth trends in the chip industry are changed for good, Ford says. Despite its vicious cycles, the industry has over the years turned in compound annual sales growth in the range of 15% to 17% depending on which periods of the industry's history you count. Ford says those days are over.
"We see that long-term growth falling to between 8% to 10%," he says. "The industry isn't going back to the same levels it has been used to."
<<
TMTA:
FWIW: here are two contrasting views on the significance of today’s TMTA announcement re the embedded market:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1602585284&tid=tmta&sid=16025852...
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1602585284&tid=tmta&sid=16025852...
I’d be interested in how investors with an INTC perspective see this. Dew
P.S. wbmw: with TMTA’s close at 1.41 today, you are back in the black. My advice: do not settle for a piddling gain when you have a legitimate shot at a 5-bagger.
>> While Cell's hardware design might be difficult, it's creating software for the chip that will be the trickiest part of establishing it in the market. <<
Indeed. Software usually is the rub with these bleeding-edge designs.
Thanks, EP, wbmw, borusa for your replies.
This discussion on speed vs yield is germane to a discussion we had here several months ago on gross margins for Banias. I recall being criticized for saying that the higher-speed Banias chips will bear a higher COGS than the lower-speed versions of Banias. Now I understand where you guys were coming from.
I recognize that the 1.6GHz Banias chips will come off the same production line as the 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5GHz chips, and hence, in your way of thinking, the 1.6’s don’t really cost more per unit.
However, I believe that INTC and other chip companies take into account the implicit cost (i.e. the lower yield for all chips on the line) when you push up the frequency of the highest-speed chips on the line. It really does make sense to charge the high-speed chips with a greater COGS number than the low-speed chips because it’s the high-speed chips which stress the entire process.
When you look at things this way (i.e. like an accountant rather than an engineer), the gross-margin estimates that I cited previously for Banias might be reasonable after all. FWIW. Dew
>> the optimization can be skewed toward yield of workable parts or can be skewed toward fewer workable parts that run faster <<
I understand that there is an inherent tradeoff here but, in a typical scenario, how much yield do you have to sacrifice to get more speed?
>> I am getting over my head now. Others may have better info. <<
I appreciate your giving it a try. As a software guy, I’m somewhat deficient in the process area, but I am trying to educate myself. I’d still like to know what was meant by “heating up the transistors” in message #3286. Regards, Dew
>> My original position was that Intel was never "capacity constrained" in the sense that they did not have the Fab capacity, i.e. wafer start capacity, to meet demand. That capacity has always existed. The fact that Intel could not take full advantage of wafer start capacity is the reason for not being able to meet demand. I think that I have provided adequate support for that position. <<
Why is such a distinction pertinent for investors? Either way, it would seem that failure to meet demand in the past is not necessarily predictive of failure to meet demand in the future. Am I missing something?
From message 3286:
Well, one of our sources suggested that Intel is sacrificing yields… to get higher speed grades. Intel might be "heating up" the transistors which will result in faster parts, but the yields will be very low.
Can someone explain in plain English what “heating up the transistors” means in this context? How and why does that produce faster speeds but lower yields? T.i.a. Dew
Hi wsh. Glad to see you’re still around.
Today’s price action in TMTA is about right, IMO. The embedded stuff is nice but it’s not the key to profitability because the ASP’s are so low. We still need to launch the Astro on time and without a hitch. Regards, Dew
TMTA’s move into embedded processors has been expected because CEO Matt Perry’s background is in that area. However, I’m a little skeptical that the embedded market will be the main driver for TMTA to realize the revenue ramp needed for profitability because the embedded ASP’s are so darned low. The announced price for the new Crusoe SE processor is <$50 for the lowest-speed model running at 667MHz; no price has been given for the 800-933MHz models.
For TMTA, I consider the embedded market material but clearly subordinate to the laptop/tablet/UPC markets. TMTA’s success still hinges primarily on the 256-bit VLIW Astro CPU scheduled for volume shipments this summer. Dew
MIT develops next-generation OLED displays:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2002/dot.html
>>
Quantum-dot LED may be screen of choice for future electronics
DECEMBER 18, 2002
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.—MIT researchers have combined organic materials with high-performing inorganic nanocrystals to create a hybrid optoelectronic structure—a quantum dot-organic light-emitting device (QD-OLED) that may one day replace liquid crystal displays (LCDs) as the flat-panel display of choice for consumer electronics.
The work, reported in the Dec. 19 issue of Nature, is a collaborative effort between Moungi G. Bawendi, professor of chemistry, and Vladimir Bulovic, assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science. Bulovic is also affiliated with the Research Laboratory of Electronics.
Bawendi studies the electronic and optical properties of semiconductor nanocrystal quantum dots for applications ranging from biology to optical devices. Also called artificial atoms, quantum dots are nanometer-scale “boxes” that selectively hold or release electrons.
Unlike traditional LCDs, which must be lit from behind, quantum dots generate their own light. Depending on their size, the dots can be “tuned” to emit any color in the rainbow. And the colors of light they produce are much more saturated than that of other sources.
Bulovic is pursuing the use of organic and nanostructured materials as active electronic elements. Bawendi and Bulovic, with electrical engineering and computer science graduate student Seth A. Coe and chemistry graduate student Wing-Keung Woo, teamed up through MIT’s Center for Materials Science and Engineering (CMSE) to create a new, improved QD-OLED.
This latest MIT QD-OLED contains only a single layer of quantum dots sandwiched between two organic thin films. (Previous QD-OLEDs used 10-20 layers.) The researchers have demonstrated organized assemblies over a 1-square centimeter area and the same principle could be used to make bigger components.
The MIT team’s method of combining organic and inorganic materials may pave the way for new technologies and enhance understanding of the physics of these materials.
In addition to being used for extraordinarily thin, bright flat-panel displays, the QD-OLEDs also may be used in a variety of other applications; to calibrate wavelengths for scientific purposes, generate wavelengths visible only to robot eyes or “miniaturize scientific equipment in ways we haven’t yet imagined,” Bawendi said.
CREATING BRIGHT LIGHT
The QD-OLEDs created in the MIT study have a 25-fold improvement in luminescent power efficiency over previous QD-OLEDs. The MIT researchers note that in time, the devices may be made even more efficient and achieve even higher color saturation.
“One of the goals is to demonstrate a display that is stable, simple to produce, flat, high-resolution and that uses minimal power,” Bulovic said.
The MIT researchers were inspired by advances in all-organic LED (OLED) technology. OLEDs, which can be used to create TVs or computer screens only a fraction of an inch thick with the same brightness as LCDs, have been making their way into commercial electronic devices. The MIT group envisions that QD-OLEDs will in time become complementary to OLEDs because they can be built on the same electronic platforms with compatible manufacturing methods.
TINY BUILDING BLOCKS
While the future of electronics and other fields may revolve around nanotechnology, researchers and manufacturers are faced with fabricating large-scale components out of building blocks invisible to the naked eye.
Creating hybrid optoelectronic devices depends on the precise positioning of functionally distinct materials, the authors write. “How do you efficiently transport electrical charges to an active area of a hybrid device that is only a single layer of quantum dots?” Bawendi said.
The researchers used organic molecules currently used in OLEDs as an organic semiconductor to deliver an electrical charge to the quantum dots. They used two parallel processes, which are already widely applicable in industry, to create separate but layered structures out of nanoscale materials.
<<
If you are looking for a hedge for your INTC holding, TMTA might fit the bill better than AMD. wbmw owns some TMTA as a hedge so the idea can’t be crazy.
And I hate to bring it up again but you never responded to my proposed bet on TMTA vs INTC over the next two years. Regards, Dew
>> They have a fine Flash product line and even if processors don't turn out as they hype they can still possibly have a future <<
EP: was that: a) A typo; b) A Freudian slip; or c) Intentional?
You’ve been putting out some funny stuff lately. Regards, Dew
>> As for AMD, I learned long ago that there is always another sucker who is willing to take the place of the last guy who lost a bundle waiting for AMD to make it big… Some people just can't resist a loser. Kind of like the battered wife syndrome. <<
EP: You may be on to something there – that’s one of the few comments I’ve heard about battered wife syndrome that makes sense to me.
Over the years, your statement could have applied to some other famous tech names which had great technology but always seemed to end up a loser in every endeavor they tried. One that comes immediately to mind is Polaroid. FWIW. Dew
What time of day is the Happy Hour for free users? Is it the same schedule every day? t.i.a.
P.S. Access today has very slow. I guess you already know about that.
This could be fun:
My portfolio is up 5.3% today (as of 3:40EST, all but one position up).
If every day this year is just like today, 2003 will produce a return of 551,644%
wbmw: Fortunately, I did buy some in the mid 1’s when everyone was screaming “bankruptcy!” I knew from listening to the very detailed CC’s and reading the 10Q’s that GLW’s balance sheet was much better than most people thought. And that was before the sale of the precision lens division to 3M for $850M.
Regrettably, I am still in the red overall due to shares I bought in 2001. But recent trading has helped some: I sold 25% of my holding at 4.84 and bought it back at 3.25-3.32. I’ll continue to trade a portion and keep the bulk of the shares as a “core” tech holding.
I think the current price is a pretty safe entry point; multiple insiders including the CEO bought heavily between 3.00 and 3.50 in the past few months. Happy New Year. Dew
Another great post from the Yahoo MB:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7080383&tid=glw&sid=7080383&...
GLW is my second-largest tech holding (after TMTA) and I expect great things from this company in the next 2-3 years.
Happy New Year.