Seagate has offered $186 million, or about 4.05 euros per share, for 64.5 percent of the shares of LaCie controlled by Philippe Spruch, the company’s chief executive. The offer amounts to a premium of almost 30 percent.

Anecdotally, I can also say that LaCie’s drives are probably the most popular among people who own Apple Macs. I see its orange-encased ruggedized external drives everywhere Macs are used, and I own about a half-dozen of them myself. From a consumer retail perspective, Seagate has generally struggled to penetrate the Mac-owning market. And as we all know, the size of the Mac market is growing faster than the rest of the PC-owning world.

There’s also LaCie’s considerable retail and distribution footprint to consider. Under terms of the deal, Spruch would join Seagate.

Seagate is approaching the deal from a position of renewed strength. It weathered the flooding in Thailand, which hammered the hard drive industry’s supply chain and caused a shortage last year, better than rival Western Digital.

The company’s profit climbed by nearly 6 percent in the quarter, despite persistent worries that demand for personal computers is down generally in the face of worldwide economic uncertainty, the popularity of tablet devices like Apple’s iPad, and smartphones in which Intel’s chips are not a significant factor.

Yet, as has been the case for the last several quarters, Intel knows the demand for its global markets — specifically Brazil, Russia, India, and China — far better than any industry analyst, and its executives, especially CEO Paul Otellini, have seemed to enjoy bursting the bubbles of the IDCs and Gartners of the world, who continue to preach a catechism of PC doom.

It’s important for the wider tech industry, because if Intel is healthy, it says a lot about the health of the rest of tech. If PCs are selling well, that means consumers and companies are buying them, either to replace new machines or buying a PC for the first time. And if PCs are selling well, then servers are selling well. Behind all that talk about cloud computing and cloud services are physical servers sitting in a data center somewhere, usually containing Intel chips.

The earnings conference call is about to start, so we’ll get some better indications about how and why Intel managed to surprise the Street once again.

2:35 pm: Ah, joining the conference call in progress. CEO Paul Otellini is speaking and, naturally, he’s crowing about Intel landing a chip in a Lenovo smartphone announced at CES last week.

“In the first quarter, we completed the acquisitions of McAfee and Intel Mobile Communications, formerly of Infineon. They will allow us to extend our strategies across computing.”

He’s recounting highlights of the past fiscal year. During Q4, Intel acquired Telap, which specializes in location-based technologies.

Now he’s talking about a smartphone reference design, basically a board around which a phone maker can build and customize. In the reference design is an Intel Medfield chip. Also, a strategic relationship with Motorola Mobility. “While the Lenovo and Motorola designs are first steps, we’re not done making announcements in the space.”

Now he’s talking about more chips for 2012. For example, 70 Ultrabooks are coming to market this year.

2:39 pm: CFO Stacy Smith is speaking. Nice gross margins of 65.5 percent, which were in the high end of the range. That’s Intel’s speciality — efficiency.

Smith: We saw a reduction of orders for microprocessors as a result of the Thailand flooding. The flooding didn’t affect sales directly, he says.

Smith: Q1 revenue will be down a little more from the average seasonal decline, as the flooding will continue to affect sales.

Smith: 2012 growth of revenue in the high end of single digits. Capital spending of $12.5 billion, in order to build a fancy new fab.

Smith: We continue to see strong results in emerging markets, as increased incomes allow more people to afford PCs.

Time for Q&A with the analysts.

First question from Citi: He’s asking about gross-margin projections and revenues. What is the PC forecast assumption that underlies that?

Smith: It will play out similar to this year. There will be some unit growth, and we’ll benefit from a rich product mix. The high single-digit number in perspective. Strip out some things from 2011, we expect it to come down, in part because of lower GDP growth, but we see the same kind of trends in 2012 that we saw in 2011.

Citi analyst asks if the unit costs per chip are coming down.

Smith: That’s a normal phenomenon as we ramp factories to a new process, and then the cost comes down over the course of the year.

A question from Jefferies: As you get more success in the smartphone and tablet markets, I’m wondering if it’s your intention to get more chips up and down the stack, or is it different from PCs?

Otellini: Our intention is to participate broadly in all three of those markets. In tablets, we’ll be well-positioned for that. Who knows where the prices go over time, but we’d use the advanced silicon integration capabilities that we have to drive the costs down. We’re coming in at the top of the smartphone market; we’re aiming at best performance and very good battery life. And the Infineon acquisition has given us a very good position in basic phones. They shipped about 400 million modems.

Jefferies: Do they inherently carry more profitability than the PC processor business?

Otellini: The other guys have lower margins. But we’ll get paid twice. We’ll get paid as the foundry, but also for the architecture.

2:50 pm: Question from Bank of America: There were a lot of announcements on Ultrabooks from CES. Will they cannibalize notebook sales?

Otellini: I have not seen this level of excitement since before Centrino, which was in 2003. Initially, you will see this will be a replacement of existing notebook sales. People will trade up. As we move through 2012 and into 2013 as Windows 8 machines roll out, you have the possibility or even the probability of many of those machines incorporating touch. At that point, the machines incorporate the best of both the PC and the tablet. I don’t know how that plays out, but we’ll be well-positioned.

Question from JMP Securities: I know you don’t guide by segment, but what’s happening on the data center side of the business? And how does Romley change that? (Romley is a future server chip.)

Smith: Let me do a higher-level look. The data-center business can be pretty lumpy, but on a secular basis, we’re pretty confident in the growth trends.

Otellini: We’re seeing stronger growth for Romley than we saw for Nehalem at the same point in its lifespan, two years ago. Initially, it will not drive the same kind of replacement cycle that Nehalem did. It will drive replacement for high-capacity needs. I think this product is the most well-rounded in the genre so far.

Question from Deutsche Bank: Overall, as we look at flood impact, how should we see that snapping back, and against the backdrop of the seasonality?

Otellini: There are more moving pieces as I look out over the next 11 months. Our view is that the industry seems to be hitting the bottom of their output trough in Jan. and Feb. Everyone who seems to want to buy a PC has been able to. There are some stockouts in particular SKUs. You will see some compression of the supply chain. We think there is likely to be some refilling of the pipes in the second quarter, and into the third quarter. Or people will learn to live with leaner supply chains, which is always good for us.

3:00 pm: Question from Goldman Sachs: What’s the incremental growth in capacity? And what is the initial assumption on factory loadings?

Smith: Let’s talk about what’s driving the capital spending. $12.5 billion is a big number, but you have to take in the context of how our business has grown. Then it makes sense. I think my depreciation as a percent of revenue stays in a healthy range. In terms of the makeup of specific capital spending, it’s a two-year cycle as we’re building buildings. That part starts to come down in 2013. Buildings are depreciated over a longer period of time.

In terms of factory utilization, we’re running full-out today. We’re just in the beginning of the 22-nanometer cycle. We took advantage of the flooding by taking some older equipment offline sooner than we would have otherwise. We’re selling every 22-nanometer unit we can get out there.

3:06 pm: Totally missed the question from UBS. Sorry, UBS.

Question from Credit Suisse about Ultrabooks. Are there any sort of milestones you expect — perhaps, say, percentage of total notebooks?

Otellini: Starting with the mix. Core processors are about 70 percent of our mix, and that’s historically high for our premium brand. What we can’t yet predict is the mix between i3, i5 and i7. As we move toward the second half of the year, the mix comes down to i3. In terms of a target, our goal would be to exit the year with about 40 percent of consumer notebooks being Ultrabooks.

3:11 pm: J.P. Morgan asks if Intel is going to continue to spend like a drunken sailor on capital expenditures and R&D.

Smith says Intel is making some important investments this year, but they will come down from here.

A question from Nomura: Android tablet sales seemed like a disappointment in 2011. What was the issue, and is there a reason to be more optimistic this year?

Otellini: They were where I thought they would be, but I was below where others were. Until you get to Ice Cream Sandwich, you’re at a comparison with Apple’s iPad. The other part of that test is the Windows 8 tablets that are being queued up for production. I don’t think anything about the tablet market is settled yet. The jury is out on the long-term segmentation by form factor.

Ew. Questions from Barclays are being turned back. Smith just won’t go where he wants them to go. Too granular.

3:16 pm: Otellini: The data-center storage is not your grandmother’s data-center business of before. Back to lumpy data-center sales, when Facebook or Apple turns on a new data center. We’re seeing a change to the linearity to data-center sales. Expect more short-term lumpiness, but stick to the year-on-year growth.

One more question to go. And it’s from Caris & Co. He’s asking about capex again.

Smith: If you look at spending for capex in 2012, a historically large part of it is the four-factory model. From here, our capex will be a function of two things — the unit growth we see and the speed with which we bring our process technologies to the leading edge. We balance off those decisions as we go forward. With a big increase in units, we’ll spend the capex to support it.

Caris: You’ve taken on some debt in the quarter, as you look for flexibility to buy back more stock.

Smith: Our balance sheet supports taking on more debt, and we certainly have the capability of doing so. We’ve said in the past, our first priority is investing in the business. We bought McAfee and Infineon. We had a significant increase in dividends in 2011, and as a percent of free cash flow. We did take advantage of low interest rates and high-dividend yield to buy back a lot more stock.

And that is the end of the call. Good night!

Sales for the fourth quarter came in at $13.9 billion, and per share earnings were 64 cents, for a net of $3.4 billion. For the full year Intel finished with sales of $54 billion and a net of $12.9 billion and EPS of $2.39, all of them records. So even amid the diminished expectations of the moment, Intel is sounding the victory trumpets, and not unreasonably.

The statement is below. Come back in a little while and I’ll be live blogging the earnings conference call.

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Jan. 19, 2012 – Intel Corporation today reported full-year revenue of $54 billion, operating income of $17.5 billion, net income of $12.9 billion and EPS of $2.39 — all records. The company generated approximately $21 billion in cash from operations, paid dividends of $4.1 billion and used $14.1 billion to repurchase 642 million shares of stock.

For the fourth quarter, Intel posted revenue of $13.9 billion, operating income of $4.6 billion, net income of $3.4 billion and EPS of 64 cents. The company generated approximately $6.6 billion in cash from operations, paid dividends of $1.1 billion and used $4.1 billion to repurchase 174 million shares of stock.

“2011 was an exceptional year for Intel,” said Paul Otellini, Intel president and CEO. “With outstanding execution the company performed superbly, growing revenue by more than $10 billion and eclipsing all annual revenue and earnings records. With a tremendous product and technology pipeline for 2012, we’re excited about the global growth opportunities presented by Ultrabook systems, the data center, security and the introduction of Intel-powered smartphones and tablets.”

Business Outlook
Intel’s Business Outlook does not include the potential impact of any mergers, acquisitions, divestitures or other business combinations that may be completed after Jan. 19.

Q1 2012 (GAAP, unless otherwise stated)

Revenue: $12.8 billion, plus or minus $500 million.
Gross margin percentage: 63 percent and 64 percent Non-GAAP (excluding amortization of acquisition-related intangibles), both plus or minus a couple percentage points.
R&D plus MG&A spending: approximately $4.4 billion.
Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles: approximately $75 million.
Impact of equity investments and interest and other: approximately zero.

Depreciation: approximately $1.5 billion.

Full-Year 2012 (GAAP, unless otherwise stated)

Gross margin percentage: 64 percent and 65 percent Non-GAAP (excluding amortization of acquisition-related intangibles), both plus or minus a few percentage points.
Spending (R&D plus MG&A): $18.3 billion, plus or minus $200 million.
R&D spending: approximately $10.1 billion.
Amortization of acquisition-related intangibles: approximately $300 million.
Depreciation: $6.5 billion, plus or minus $100 million.
Tax Rate: approximately 29 percent.
Full-year capital spending: $12.5 billion, plus or minus $400 million.

For additional information regarding Intel’s results and Business Outlook, please see the CFO commentary at: www.intc.com/results.cfm.

Status of Business Outlook
Intel’s Business Outlook is posted on intc.com and may be reiterated in public or private meetings with investors and others. The Business Outlook will be effective through the close of business March 16 unless earlier updated; except that the Business Outlook for amortization of acquisition-related intangibles, impact of equity investments and interest and other, and tax rate, will be effective only through the close of business on Jan. 26. Intel’s Quiet Period will start from the close of business on March 16 until publication of the company’s first-quarter earnings release, scheduled for April 17. During the Quiet Period, all of the Business Outlook and other forward-looking statements disclosed in the company’s news releases and filings with the SEC should be considered as historical, speaking as of prior to the Quiet Period only, and not subject to an update by the company.

Q4 and 2011 Key Financial Information (GAAP)

Q4 Business unit revenue:

PC Client Group revenue of $9 billion, up 17 percent year-over-year.
Data Center Group revenue of $2.7 billion, up 8 percent year-over-year.
Other Intel® architecture group revenue of $1.1 billion, up 35 percent year-over-year.
Intel® Atom™ microprocessor and chipset revenue of $167 million, down 57 percent year-over-year.
McAfee Inc. and Intel Mobile Communications contributed revenue of approximately $1 billion.

Full Year Business unit revenue:

PC Client Group had revenue of $35.4 billion, up 17% from 2010.
Data Center Group had revenue of $10.1 billion, up 17% from 2010.
Other Intel architecture group had revenue of $5.0 billion, up 64% from 2010.
Intel Atom microprocessor and chipset revenue of $1.2 billion, down 25% from 2010.
McAfee Inc. and Intel Mobile Communications contributed revenue of $3.6 billion.

Risk Factors
The above statements and any others in this document that refer to plans and expectations for the first quarter, the year and the future are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should” and their variations identify forward-looking statements. Statements that refer to or are based on projections, uncertain events or assumptions also identify forward-looking statements. Many factors could affect Intel’s actual results, and variances from Intel’s current expectations regarding such factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Intel presently considers the following to be the important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the company’s expectations.

Demand could be different from Intel’s expectations due to factors including changes in business and economic conditions, including supply constraints and other disruptions affecting customers; customer acceptance of Intel’s and competitors’ products; changes in customer order patterns including order cancellations; and changes in the level of inventory at customers. Uncertainty in global economic and financial conditions poses a risk that consumers and businesses may defer purchases in response to negative financial events, which could negatively affect product demand and other related matters.
Intel operates in intensely competitive industries that are characterized by a high percentage of costs that are fixed or difficult to reduce in the short term and product demand that is highly variable and difficult to forecast. Revenue and the gross margin percentage are affected by the timing of Intel product introductions and the demand for and market acceptance of Intel’s products; actions taken by Intel’s competitors, including product offerings and introductions, marketing programs and pricing pressures and Intel’s response to such actions; and Intel’s ability to respond quickly to technological developments and to incorporate new features into its products.
Intel is in the process of transitioning to its next generation of products on 22nm process technology, and there could be execution and timing issues associated with these changes, including products defects and errata and lower than anticipated manufacturing yields.
The gross margin percentage could vary significantly from expectations based on capacity utilization; variations in inventory valuation, including variations related to the timing of qualifying products for sale; changes in revenue levels; product mix and pricing; the timing and execution of the manufacturing ramp and associated costs; start-up costs; excess or obsolete inventory; changes in unit costs; defects or disruptions in the supply of materials or resources; product manufacturing quality/yields; and impairments of long-lived assets, including manufacturing, assembly/test and intangible assets.
The tax rate expectation is based on current tax law and current expected income. The tax rate may be affected by the jurisdictions in which profits are determined to be earned and taxed; changes in the estimates of credits, benefits and deductions; the resolution of issues arising from tax audits with various tax authorities, including payment of interest and penalties; and the ability to realize deferred tax assets.
Gains or losses from equity securities and interest and other could vary from expectations depending on gains or losses on the sale, exchange, change in the fair value or impairments of debt and equity investments; interest rates; cash balances; and changes in fair value of derivative instruments.
The majority of Intel’s non-marketable equity investment portfolio balance is concentrated in companies in the flash memory market segment, and declines in this market segment or changes in management’s plans with respect to Intel’s investments in this market segment could result in significant impairment charges, impacting restructuring charges as well as gains/losses on equity investments and interest and other.

Intel’s results could be affected by adverse economic, social, political and physical/infrastructure conditions in countries where Intel, its customers or its suppliers operate, including military conflict and other security risks, natural disasters, infrastructure disruptions, health concerns and fluctuations in currency exchange rates.
Expenses, particularly certain marketing and compensation expenses, as well as restructuring and asset impairment charges, vary depending on the level of demand for Intel’s products and the level of revenue and profits.

Intel’s results could be affected by the timing of closing of acquisitions and divestitures.
Intel’s results could be affected by adverse effects associated with product defects and errata (deviations from published specifications), and by litigation or regulatory matters involving intellectual property, stockholder, consumer, antitrust and other issues, such as the litigation and regulatory matters described in Intel’s SEC reports. An unfavorable ruling could include monetary damages or an injunction prohibiting us from manufacturing or selling one or more products, precluding particular business practices, impacting Intel’s ability to design its products, or requiring other remedies such as compulsory licensing of intellectual property.

A detailed discussion of these and other factors that could affect Intel’s results is included in Intel’s SEC filings, including the report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Oct. 1, 2011.

The remarks suggest PC makers continue to struggle with production issues stemming from Thailand’s worst flooding in decades, which had caused the shutdown of a large chunk of the world’s hard-disk drive manufacturing operations. Meanwhile, the rise in tablets is weighing on demand for PCs and economic concerns are mounting, in part because of Europe’s debt problems.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

This is, of course, bad news if you’re in the business of making the commodity Dynamic Random Access Memory chips that go into PCs, servers and smartphones. A state of oversupply coupled with weak demand means the chips command lower prices than they otherwise would. The situation can be good, however, if you’re buying computers, because memory upgrades get cheaper.

The problem, as related by the research firm IHS iSuppli, is a rise in inventories of chips that its analyst Mike Howard describes as “alarming.”

ISuppli measures how much unsold inventory the chipmakers themselves have in their warehouses — which include Micron Technology in the U.S., Elpida in Japan, and the South Korean pair of Samsung and Hynix. The higher the number is, the more intense the downward price pressure becomes.

The stockpile of DRAM chips as of the end of the third quarter of 2011 stood at 12.8 weeks, which is nearly a third higher than it had been three months earlier and double what it was in early 2010. It’s also a lot higher than the typical average of 9.2 weeks.

There are a lot of factors creating the glut. Tablets like the iPad and Kindle Fire are eating into notebook sales, and don’t require nearly as much DRAM as notebooks do. And new operating systems don’t require the incremental boost in onboard memory as had been typical.

Nor is the economic uncertainty caused by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe helping. Flooding in Thailand has also disrupted the supply of hard drives which has in turn affected the overall demand for PCs and servers. Computer makers who can’t get hard drives simply won’t build as many computers, and thus won’t be buying the DRAM they otherwise would be.

Something similar happened in 2008 when the global recession sapped computer demand and caused a pileup of DRAM chips that lasted nine quarters. This cycle could turn out to be worse, iSuppli says.

Overall, iSuppli reckons the market for DRAM chips was worth about $6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011, down by 11 percent from the prior quarter, and it’s only heading further south. The worst, Howard says, is apparently yet to come.

If the economy turns upward, or even is perceived to be on the mend, the glut can work its way down pretty quickly. In 2009 the stockpile dropped by more than half over three quarters.

And if it seems obvious that these chip companies should just stop making DRAM and let demand catch up with supply, it’s actually not that easy. Chip factories, or fabs, contain billions of dollars worth of manufacturing equipment running processes that are difficult to stop and start. Also, it’s more expensive to have them sitting there doing nothing but depreciating than turning out a product that brings in revenue, even if it’s running at break-even or a slight loss.

Global sales of semiconductors were $25.1 billion in November, representing a decrease of 2.4 percent from October. On a year-to-date basis, global chip sales were up by 0.8 percent versus the same time in 2010.

Last month, Intel slashed its sales outlook by $1 billion on concerns that effects of floods in Thailand would impact demand for PCs, and thus for its microprocessors. The flooding has caused what’s being described as the most significant supply chain disruption to the PC and server industry in a generation.

SIA President Brian Toohey described the disruption as a near-term problem. “Supply chain disruptions resulting from the floods in Thailand have impacted semiconductor sales in the near term, however OEMs” — PC and other electronics manufacturers — “are expected to recover production losses over the course of the next few months,” he said in a statement.

“November sales were additionally affected by the continuing European financial crisis which is having a broad impact on other economies and global demand,” he said. The impact from Europe is especially clear in the 11.5 percent drop in sales to that region, which you can see in the chart below, a screen-grab from the SIA’s press release.

(Image credit: iStockphoto | V777999)

The country is now beginning the arduous job of cleaning up from the floods that killed upwards of 600 people and dealt a body blow to its industrial and manufacturing base.

One industry hit especially hard is the computer business. The world relies on factories in Thailand to turn out critical components used to build hard drives, and factories there are out of commission for now. This is not a trivial problem — the factories in question are not easy to replace, retool and restart once they dry out. Nor is the answer simply for the hard drive manufacturers to build new factories somewhere outside the flood zone.

This is the kind of supply chain disruption that the computer industry hasn’t seen in many years. I had a chance to talk with Steve Luczo, the CEO of Seagate Technology, for his view of the situation. Seagate has been relatively lucky in that its factories haven’t been directly impacted like those of Western Digital and Toshiba. But many companies that supply Seagate with necessary components have been hit, and it will be some time before they’re back on their feet.

Luczo told me that the computer industry as a whole — including companies who make PCs, servers, workstations and any other device that contains a hard drive, whether a set-top box or an enterprise storage device — can expect acute supply-chain disruptions to last well into 2012, and that it will take until the end of 2013 for the industry to return to its pre-flood operating posture. You read that right: It will be two years before the supply of hard drives is anywhere near “back to normal,” and there are simply no easy solutions for getting it fixed.

An estimate by the market research firm IHS iSuppli pegs the available supply at 125 million units, which is about 29 percent short of demand of 175 million units. By its reckoning, more than one-quarter of the world’s hard drive manufacturing capacity has been disrupted in one way or another, including 45 percent of the capacity devoted to making hard drives for personal computers. I spoke with Luczo by phone yesterday, and tossed in an extra eighth question because of the importance of the subject.

AllThingsD: Steve, at a high level, I think everyone understands the problem. There’s been a terrible flood in Thailand, and a lot of factories that make crucial parts for hard drives are out of commission. To that end, I think people expect this to be a temporary problem that works itself out in a couple of months. But you say it’s a much more complex problem than most people realize. You’re tracking this situation day to day, and probably hour by hour. So, how bad is it, really? And what’s likely to happen?

Luczo: What’s surprising to us is that even with all the data out there — we’re six weeks into it — there are a lot of fairly sophisticated companies that haven’t fully come to grips with the depth of the problem and the duration that is likely to occur. What is going to happen in the next couple of weeks is that the real shortage begins to show up right about now. There was already a lot of built inventory and a lot of finished goods moving through the system. And now all that is gone, and I think customers are starting to see shelves of parts go empty, and realizing that they’re not going to be filled for anywhere from one to two months. So the concern is heightened.

We heard Meg Whitman talk about this on HP’s earnings call Monday. She said HP stepped in and started doing some strategic buying. She says HP is going to see effects at least through the first half of next year. Apple talked about it on its earnings conference call, too. Are you hearing from them?

Tim Cook at Apple was way in front of this. I saw Tim the first week it happened, and took him through the situation, and in 15 minutes he understood the magnitude of it. Meg was on the second week of her job as CEO when I went to see her, and she got it right away. HP’s procurement VP, Tony Prophet, was also early to understand this. Companies like that reached out to us early on, because they understood that this is going to be an extended problem. They started asking for longer supply agreements. Deals that would typically last about a year, they’re now asking for two years.

How bad is it really going to be? What’s your outlier worst-case scenario, and then what do you think is a little more realistic?

If you think pre-flood, a mix [of products] that the customers need, the industry had the capacity to ship about 190 million units a quarter. Pre-flood, we expected the demand to be pretty consistent at about 180 million a quarter, with a bump in September 2012 for Windows 8. We now believe the March quarter is going to much more difficult than the December quarter, and December is going to be about 120 million or so. We think the March quarter will be about 120 million, in the best-case scenario. And that’s with customers mixing down pretty aggressively; and by that, I mean companies like Western Digital, who don’t have access to the sliders [a critical component in a drive], are shipping one- and two-headed devices so they can ship more units. So instead of shipping a drive that contains two disks and four heads, which is what the market needs right now, they’ll be shipping a one-disk, one-head or one-desk, two-head product. They’ll be maximizing the units they can sell, rather than shipping the product the customer actually needs. … So we see something like 130 million for March on the optimistic side, and then 150 million for June, 170 for September and then 190 million for December. And so by the end of 2012 you’re back to being close to industry demand. But even then, you’ve not included the impact of that missed 100 million units. And that will take another year to absorb, because it’s not like the industry is building new factories to chase that demand. We can’t over-invest to meet some bubble and then get stuck with excess capacity.

I think, intuitively, people expected companies like Seagate to just build more factories outside of the flood zone, but it’s not that simple, is it? Would this not be a moment to add capacity?

There are some in the investment community who think that’s what is going to happen, and that there will end up being a supply glut after all this is over, but it’s not the case. For us, it’s more a function of how to recover the supply chain and then work with the customer to get a good read on what their needs are for the next several quarters. If we see a multiquarter shortage that goes beyond what I described before, then we would think about maybe putting some capital in place. But we’re not going to do that to solve a temporary problem, because we end up being stuck with the excess capacity. Now if it turns out there is no recovery, and then the industry is more constrained than I first described — and that, by June, the industry is still 30-40 million units short and looks like it will be for the next six quarters — we might revisit. But then we’d want longer-term commitments to make sure we’re not overinvesting. But we’re not to that point yet.

What is this doing to prices? And what does that mean to the person who wants to buy a computer or server this year or next year?

If you look at a 10-year moving average trend, the industry has in general seen prices come down about 2 to 3 percent a quarter, and that is for a particular product. In 2009, there was a little price erosion, and that was because the storage industry recovered quickly from the recession. And there had been massive capital cutbacks, so there were big shortfalls through all of 2009 and into 2010. Then, when the Greece crisis happened, that put a big flatline on a lot of growth, and the industry had put in a lot of capital because everyone expected there would be growth. So, since spring of 2010, the price erosion has been higher than normal, which would show that supply is greater than demand. And what this flood has done is drive the supply curve down, while the demand curve has stayed constant. For OEMs [original equipment manufacturers, or the PC and server manufacturers like Apple, HP and Dell, who buy directly from Seagate], you’re seeing an average increase of about 20 percent, and in the channel [resellers who sell parts to smaller PC and server vendors], probably much higher. So all the sensational quotes you see about pricing are about those that occur in the channel, where we have no control whatsoever.

The markups in the channel are much higher? Are the channel guys taking advantage of this?

Yes, they’re higher, but I don’t think they’re taking advantage. I’ve heard stories about drives that we sell to OEMs for $60 that show up in the channel at $105. Normally the channel price is within about 10 percent of the OEM price. It’s just the law of supply and demand. They can’t get supply. The channel is getting about a third, at most, of the supply they would typically get. The OEMs are the ones with the supply agreements, so everyone in the channel is way short. In some market segments, supply is about 70 percent below what the demand is. And so those shortages are very acute. The channel is selling the few drives that are out there to whoever needs them the most and is willing to pay for them.

So what does all this mean for Seagate, specifically?

For us it’s a different story, because we’re going to be driving more volume than our competitors, because we’re not as directly affected, and we’re going to be making some  technology transitions. When we do that, it lets us take cost out of our product, so we can offer more capacity for the same or fewer parts. That helps us drive down pricing. Our goal is to recapture some of the more aggressive pricing of the last eight quarters, in order to sort of get our business back in balance. Our long-term business model calls for gross margins of 22 to 26 percent. And we use our manufacturing expertise to drive down our costs and then pass that on to our customers. This quarter, end users really won’t see it, because product has been built and has been on the shelves. As the shortages just started occurring, you’re starting to see prices increase in the channel. And then at the OEM there will be shortages in some high-value areas like enterprise storage or cloud computing. You’re going to have to see price increases, because there’s such big shortages.

One thing that occurred to me when I first wrote about this a month or so ago is that it represents an opportunity for the flash memory chip companies to make some inroads against hard-drive guys like you, mainly on notebooks. Is there a threat that flash could pick up some of the demand?

Some of it, but not very much. I think to the extent that there is a high value purchaser who can afford to pay $200 for 100 gigabytes, then that market will expand from 1-2 percent to 3-4 percent. Of the 35 to 40 percent shortage that exists, could you see a little of that get absorbed by silicon? The answer is yes. But there’s a cap. There’s just not enough of a raw supply of silicon to meet all the demand. Our industry will ship 400 exabytes this year. We would have shipped 450, were it not for the floods. Of that, 180 exabytes is notebooks. Reduce that by 30 percent, and you get about 55 or 60 exabytes. If you were to take all of the capacity from Samsung’s newest state-of-the-art flash factory, and dedicated it just to notebooks, it would only put out 7 exabytes a year. Plus, there are already other markets demanding flash, like  tablets and cellphones and other things. So it’s not like you can steal from those other markets. You’re not going to take a $32 product and replace it with a $350 product. Can you do it at the edges of the market? Sure. But the threat is capped by the amount of silicon available and the price point for flash storage, which is still an order of magnitude higher.

Western Digital CEO John Coyne warned yesterday on a conference call with analysts that the company expects significant impact to its hard-drive manufacturing operations in that country. It is one of several tech companies that has suspended operations in Thailand amid the worst flooding there in a half century.

Seagate, which reported earnings yesterday, also has operations in Thailand and said those are running at full capacity, but that some of its component suppliers have been affected by the floods.

“Given the severity of the situation and the extensive supply constraints caused by the disruption … the effects on our industry are likely to be substantial and will extend over multiple quarters,” Seagate said in a statement.

With the prospect of an industrywide shortage of hard drives affecting one vendor but not the other, shares of Seagate today shot up by $3.36, or more than 27 percent, to $15.42; Western Digital fell nearly 10 percent yesterday, but recovered today.

I checked in with Fang Zhang, who tracks storage for IHS iSuppli, the research firm that covers the electronics supply chain. While it’s too early yet to know the full impact, her initial estimate says that the worldwide production of hard drives will drop by about 30 percent, from 176 million units projected pre-flood to 125 million drives in the fourth quarter.

Apple CEO Tim Cook addressed the potential for a shortage on Apple’s earnings call with analysts on Tuesday because, naturally, it will affect his ability to turn out Macs this quarter and probably into next year. “I’m virtually certain there will be an overall industry shortage of disk drives as a result of the disaster,” he said.

One question I have is whether this could turn out to be an opportunity for the solid-state storage companies — the main supplier that comes to mind here is Samsung — that are popularizing flash-memory based storage drives in PCs like the MacBook Air and other machines. Will they boost production to fill that gap?

(Image via Consumer Queen.)

But given the widespread adoption of tablets like Apple’s iPad, coupled with everyone under the sun vying for a piece of the tablet market, it’s easy to see that consumption of content will continue to explode. And that’s the point — with that explosion comes the aftershock of storage demand. As more users adopt tablets as mainstream, more storage from hard drives will be needed from the backend servers and in the cloud to serve them. So while flash is appealing for use in consumption devices like tablets, let’s not let this obscure the main fact about tablets in the big picture of the storage market, which is that tablets aren’t hurting hard drive sales — in fact, they are helping.

When examining the storage market, we can look at present and future projections for HDD unit sales and by volume of capacity (in petabytes) shipped as per the chart below:

But we can also look at the data trends for consumption. In 2005, the world generated 150 exabytes (one billion gigabytes) of data. This year, it’s estimated that we’ll create and store 1,200 exabytes, and in 2020, a staggering 35,000 exabytes!¹ That’s 30x growth over the next 10 years.

This isn’t the first time that we’ve heard in the HDD world that the sky is falling. About a decade ago, MP3 player manufacturers shrank the device footprint and switched from hard drive storage to flash. Not long after, smartphones came on the scene, and those in the know posted that users would discard their PCs in favor of smartphones and, again, the hard drive industry would suffer. But the sky never fell, and neither MP3 players nor smartphones caused hard drive sales to decline. In fact, sales actually grew 14 percent between 2000 and 2005, and continued to grow 12 percent from 2005 to 2010.¹ The reality is that the more content consumption devices hit the market, the greater the demand for hard drive storage capacity, even when it is not local to the device.

Now let’s delve into some logic. Consumers didn’t discard their PCs for smartphones, and they aren’t going to chuck their PCs for tablets — the devices just aren’t that interchangeable. People are using their tablets for content consumption: to watch movies, browse the Internet, check email, play games, etc. But they aren’t really using their tablets for content creation, and certainly don’t rely on them for heavy duty applications. So logically, it follows that most people who own a tablet need a PC as well.

But just for argument’s sake, let’s assume users worldwide tossed out their PCs and replaced them with tablets. Right out of the gate, we would have a capacity problem. The bottom line is that all the flash in the world isn’t close to enough to meet the worldwide need for storage capacity, and that fact will remain true for a very, very long time. Here are some numbers to consider: In 2010, all the content created and replicated grew past a staggering zettabyte (one trillion gigabytes), and is expected to reach 1.8 zettabytes in 2011. Yet in 2010, the entire NAND flash memory industry manufactured just over 11 exabytes (you would need 1000 exabytes to equal every one zettabyte) of storage. Even with forecasts predicting that NAND flash production capacity will grow to 21 exabytes in 2011, only nine percent of that, or about two exabytes, will go to the flash memory used in tablets.² That’s not nearly enough capacity to meet demand.

Tablets with flash storage simply don’t have the onboard capacity to store the massive volumes of digital content that users want to access — anytime, anywhere. So all that data needs to be stored externally, in either local attached, networked or cloud storage — and all those formats rely on hard drives. So, once again, tablet popularity doesn’t hurt hard drive sales. In fact, some pundits see tablets as a net gain for hard drives: “For now, IDC sees the rise in demand for iPads/tablets as additive … for HDD makers in terms of the growth of information and digital content that has to be stored somewhere. That content and information consumed by these devices most likely will be stored on hard disk drives in data centers, cloud infrastructures, or on USB or network-attached personal storage devices in homes.”³

So in the end, even if some users do opt to replace their PCs with tablets, hard drives will still be in high demand. Content will continue its growth and storage will always be needed. Because nobody is saying worldwide demand for storage capacity is decreasing. Now that would be an ugly rumor!

Mark Wojtasiak is a Senior Manager in Product Marketing with Seagate Technology. For the past 5 years, Mark has been based in Seagate’s Shakopee, MN, design center where Seagate lives and breathes enterprise storage. Though Mark works in the middle of everything enterprise, his role at Seagate enables him to listen, learn, discuss, and share anything and everything related to storage. From the traditional desktop to external drives to the cloud, he develops insights on the latest storage technology, trends, customers, and users.

^{1 IDC Digital Universe Study, June 2011}

^{2 Gartner, Forecast: NAND Flash Supply and Demand, Worldwide, 1Q10-4Q12, 3Q11 Update, page 2, Table 15-3, September 2011}

^{3 http://storageeffect.media.seagate.com/2010/11/storage-effect/a-tablet-with-a-side-of-storage-please/}

Next we saw Violin Memory — which makes flash-based storage arrays that are intended to make enterprise applications run faster — land $40 million in venture capital funding.

Now we see a third player entering the “flash madness” narrative. Pure Storage is coming out of stealth today, announcing its plans to sell flash-based storage arrays. It is also announcing that it has landed a $30 million C-round led by Redpoint Ventures, with Samsung Venture Investment joining. (Yes, that would be the venture capital arm of the South Korean electronics giant that happens to be the world’s biggest manufacturer of flash memory.) Greylock Partners and Sutter Hill Ventures also participated. The latest round brings Pure’s total funding raised to date to $55 million.

So what is Pure Storage all about? I met up with CEO Scott Dietzen last week and got the download.

The fundamental problem with enterprise storage is that hard drives just can’t keep up with everything else that’s gotten faster in the data center. Flash memory is fundamentally faster, it uses less energy and it takes up less space. We all know this.

The problem with flash is that it has always tended to be more expensive than hard drives. Today, you can buy a one terabyte hard drive for $100 or less. But just try getting that same amount in flash memory and see if the price isn’t, well, a lot higher.

The same principles apply in the data center. CIOs would love to convert to flash-based systems, as long as they’re reliable and affordable and work with the applications and other hardware they already have.

Pure Storage is essentially promising to deliver just that, Dietzen says. The company’s first product is an all-flash storage array that is 10 times faster and 10 times smaller than hard-disk-based systems. It’s called the Pure Storage FlashArray, and it is being aimed at mainstream enterprises in a manner that’s easy to deploy.

Pure’s founders are John Colgrove — one of the founding engineers at Veritas, now part of Symantec — and John Hayes, a founding engineer at Bix, which was ultimately swallowed up by Yahoo. Dietzen hails from Yahoo as well, by way of its acquisition of Zimbra, where he was CTO.

An early key hire was Michael Cornwell, who was lead technologist for flash at Sun Microsystems (now part of Oracle). Cornwell also worked at Apple, where he was Manager of Storage Engineering for the iPod division, and oversaw that product’s transition to — you guessed it — flash memory. Remember the first iPod nano? That was his baby.

Another key name: Greylock venture partner Frank Slootman, the former CEO of Data Domain, is on Pure’s board.

So what’s so special about a storage array built on flash memory? “Disks get slower every year,” Dietzen says. “Intel says processors have gotten 175 times faster over the last 15 years.” Disks just keep getting more data packed onto them, which doesn’t really make them any faster. The mechanical arm inside the disk that grabs data from the platter really can’t go much faster. “Disks today are comparably slower than tape was 15 years ago,” he says.

This creates a problem. Storage needs are going up, but hard drives are slowing data centers down, preventing them from reaching their full potential. It’s only because of cost — about $5 per gigabyte — that hard drives are still appealing. Enterprise-grade flash, on the other hand, tends to cost $40 to $100 per gigabyte, and because flash is historically less reliable, you have to buy double what you really need.

Pure’s play is to get over the cost hurdle. Dietzen says the company can get the cost down to $5 per gigabyte and less.

How does it do that? By reducing the amount of data you actually store. What happens in enterprise environments is that various bits of data get copied and recopied, over and over. Imagine a big filing cabinet with 50 copies of each document scattered around in different folders, when you really only need one. Suddenly the size of that file cabinet need not be so big. The same applies in data storage: Why bother having 10 copies of the same block of data, when one or two will do?

Using a technique known as deduplication, a system can eliminate all those unneeded copies and thus streamline the whole operation. Deduplication, combined with compression, was the primary principle behind Slootman’s Data Domain, which is now part of EMC.

But deduplication is expensive on hard drives, and really doesn’t make sense. Because the mechanical arm in a hard drive is always searching around for where its next needed block of data is to be found, if you employ deduplication, you end up with a bunch of reference signs telling the arm where to go, Dietzen says. The end result is that the disk has to spin more, not less. Flash memory chips don’t have that problem. “We make that process fast, because there’s no performance hit to the deduping process,” he says.

On top of that, Pure has created some algorithms that make the process a lot more granular than on hard-disk-based systems, by working with smaller disk-sector sizes. How small? He wouldn’t say exactly.

Unlike other storage companies — like, say, EMC — Pure’s array, Dietzen says, is built from the ground up for running flash. “The disk-centric companies are slotting flash into places where disks used to be, but they’re not changing the software to take advantage of the flash, to protect the flash from uneven wear and other things.”

A few early companies have tried the hardware, among them the law firm of Fenwick & West, whose CIO Matt Kesner is quoted in Pure’s press release as saying that the data used for various workloads was reduced from 50 to 90 percent.

One key thing that’s going on in the data center these days is virtualization — running several virtual computers within one single physical computer. When you run a lot of virtual machines, you have a lot of data that, like the paper in that big file cabinet, is essentially the same. Dietzen says that Pure’s flash array is able to eliminate a lot of that data. “Even if those virtual machines are a mix of Windows and Linux, there are a lot of commonalities between them,” he says. It’s not uncommon to see the data footprint for virtual machines reduced by a factor of 15 or 20 to one.

And that has caused some interesting reactions among early customers trying out the array. “Some people try it and are shocked when they put 15 terabytes on it and see there’s only one terabyte and think we’ve lost a lot of their data,” Dietzen says. “It’s a little scary at first, but then they run all their workloads and see all the data is there.”

For 2011, he expects a continuation of a lot of trends you’ve already been hearing about. You probably already knew about the direction of the general trends, but Marshall has included some interesting figures around the size of various opportunities.

Cloud computing, he says, currently consumes only two percent of the global enterprise storage budget today, and he expects that to grow to between 15 and 20 percent within five years.

He says solid-state storage–which uses flash memory to enhance storage in servers by breaking up the bottlenecks that exist between processors that do the number crunching and hard drives that store the data–is “at a nascent stage,” and that solid-state use in enterprise applications will only get more important in 2011.

Finally, expect more virtualization in the data center. Currently, corporations virtualize about 30 percent of their servers and storage machines. Marshall thinks over five years, that will grow to about 70 percent, and if the conditions are right, 2011 could be a year where the growth rate could accelerate significantly.

Note that iSuppli counts microprocessors differently than some of the other research firms. Its “other” category includes not only PC chip also-rans like Via Technologies, but also general purpose RISC chips like IBM’s Power chips that go into servers.

There’s better news, however, for the beaten-down hard-drive industry. After seeing shipments decline through the first half of the year, fourth-quarter shipments are up, as are revenues, iSuppli says. It’s clearly the result of the holiday-season demand, but welcome news, especially in light of all the worries that tablets–like Apple’s iPad–which use flash memory for storage, would whack hard-drive sales. (Though, as Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski noted this morning, the hard-drive guys still have lots to fear from tablets.)

Western Digital is holding on to its top spot as the world’s leading supplier, edging out Seagate, which has seen its share of troubles lately.

Seagate failed to come to terms with TPG Capital last month on a plan that would have taken the company private, and also spurned a takeover offer from Western Digital. Last week it moved to refinance more than $2 billion in debt, more than $500 million of which is due before the end of the year, with a combination of bonds and bank loans.

To avoid the difficulties you described last week with migrating from Windows XP to Windows 7, what do you think about a two-step approach whereby we buy Vista, upgrade from XP to Vista, and then go from Vista to Windows 7?

That would work, since–unlike those running XP–PCs running Vista can be upgraded to Windows 7 directly, without wiping their hard drives, displacing any files or re-installing any programs.

However, you’d be doing twice the work and paying for two new versions of Windows instead of one.

If I bought a Vista computer, but had it downgraded at the factory to XP, will my situation be any different than what you described should I choose to migrate to Windows 7?

According to Microsoft, the answer is no. Your computer is now a Windows XP computer, and thus still has no direct upgrade path to Windows 7. You would still have to remove and later restore your personal files, wipe your hard disk clean, and then re-install all your programs. However, if you received Windows Vista installation disks with the machine, you could upgrade it to Windows Vista first, and then, upgrade it directly to Windows 7, a process that doesn’t require any of those cumbersome steps.

Does the difficult scenario of moving from Windows XP to Windows 7 that you described last week also apply to those of us who run XP on Macs in virtual-machine programs like Parallels or Fusion?

Yes. Microsoft says the same migration steps are necessary whether the Windows XP computer is physical or virtual, and that includes Macs running XP via the Parallels or Fusion software.

It also applies if you are running XP on a Mac using Apple’s Boot Camp program and wish to move to Windows 7.

After Windows 7 comes out in October, will Microsoft somehow force us XP users to stop using it? Is there any reason I have to upgrade, or can I keep using XP, which meets my needs perfectly?

You can keep using Windows XP and all your current programs on your current computer. It won’t suddenly expire.

Especially in light of how hard it will be to upgrade, can you please explain what advantages Windows 7 will have over XP, which is tried and true? I deliberately skipped Vista and am inclined to skip this new Windows version as well.

People should never feel stampeded to upgrade their technology and should keep using whatever meets their needs and makes them comfortable.

However, based on my testing of pre-release versions of Windows 7, I would say it is significantly better than XP, which, after all, was designed a decade ago, an eternity in computer time.

I’ll cite just a few examples. Microsoft says that Windows 7 is more secure than XP, because its underlying architecture allows more defenses against malicious software than in the older product. Microsoft claims, and my tests bear out, that Windows 7 makes networking computers much simpler, quicker and more reliable than XP does. And the company says that Wi-Fi networks work better and faster than they do with XP.

I would add that, if Windows 7 catches on in a way that Vista didn’t, you may gradually find that new software and hardware makers will stop bothering to make their products compatible with XP, though this process will take years.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online for free at the All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

The Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling which concluded that network DVRs were a violation of content copyrights.

Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett notes this morning that the Court concurred with Cablevision’s view that by ceding control of what’s recorded to the customer, Cablevision’s network DVR model avoids direct liability for copyright infringement. “In Cablevision’s view, a network DVR is, in essence, simply a DVR with a very long cord,” he writes.

Read the rest of this post