IBM chip fabs (was: Apple's New G5 Marketing Approach)

[jgvp]

Nice one, Joe, always welcome to observe a subject from another 
perspective.
What I find strange is the dearth of actual purchasers reporting on 
their experiences with the new G5. Maybe I should seek out the G5 
newsgroup ? <s> I've only seen one report so far but that was 
restricted to the fact that it had just been received. As you say, time 
will tell. I sincerely hope nothing negative comes about for all 
concerned as we all need a boost after all the events of this year so 
far.

> Message-Id: <p05210624bb691aff02fe@[192.168.1.254]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:57:48 -0400
> From: "Joseph B. Gurman" <gurman at gsfc.nasa.gov>
> Subject: [G4] IBM chip fabs (was: Apple's New G5 Marketing Approach)
>
>      All of the layoffs were at the older plant in Vermont.
> Unfortunately, chip fabs, which cost upwards of US$2B to build, are
> pretty much obsolete after a few years. Unless you locate your new
> fab next to the old one (think Taiwan or Korea), that means layoffs.
> (US companies use the promise of a new fab to suck tax and amenities
> concessions out of state and local governments, which is a hard sell
> the second time around, so they tend to build fabs all over the
> place.) Also, keeping old fabs open tends to mean red ink, even after
> the layoffs. As the article points out, there's a new man running
> IBM's fab operations, and his job is obviously to turn the red ink
> into black, no matter how many workers he has to relocate or lay off.
> (The new fab, by the way, is far more automated, so there probably
> aren't many job openings there for the affected folks in Vermont.)
> The best news for us is that it's in the new guy's interest to
> produce lots of chips for Apple.
>
>      Posts I've seen elsewhere from people who work at East Fishkill
> hint (they aren't supposed to say outright) that production is way up
> from the "disappointing yields" earlier. Some comments on MacNN (I
> think) about the plant's generator-powered, graceful slowdown during
> the NE blackout last week indicate the plant might have a raw yield
> (i.e., not counting bad pieces) of ~ 40,000 a week. I don't think
> 100,000 G5 orders are going to be a big deal for IBM. Even if half of
> the orders are for dual-processor machines, that's still only 150,000
> pieces, or (figuring a really low yield) a few months' worth of the
> earlier, lower yields.... and they've had a few months. In all
> honesty, I have no solid idea how many usable G5 CPU's come out of
> the doors of the fab weekly, but if Apple claims it's filling orders
> on or ahead of schedule, we'll know very soon whether they're lying.
>
>      While I don't trust Apple or any other US corporate entity
> farther than I can throw their board, if they keep claiming 100K
> orders, the number will be checkable against what they have to
> report, by US law, in their next quarterly financial statement for
> the Securities and Exchange Commission. And Mr. Jobs had to sign his
> name to a document last year stating that he personally knows that
> all the information in those statements is true and complete. You
> doubt Steve? ;-)
> -- 
> "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by."
>                                                              - Douglas
> Adams, 1952 - 2001
>
> Joseph B. Gurman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Solar Physics
> Branch, Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
>
>
> ------------------------------