Big day for OCZ: remains on NASDAQ, waiting for new loan

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Big day for OCZ: remains on NASDAQ, waiting for new loan.

SSD manufacturer OCZ is currently in survival mode but has received good news from NASDAQ, it remains listed on the stock exchange. Today it should also hear if it gets a new loan.

Click to read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/big-day-for-ocz-remains-on-nasdaq-waiting-for-new-loan-67329/](http://www.myce.com/news/big-day-for-ocz-remains-on-nasdaq-waiting-for-new-loan-67329/)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

OCZ is down is todays trading, I believe in this company, people tend to dwell on the past but they don’t realize that this company pioneered the vast majority of SSDs and without OCZ none of these companies would be where they are today.:wink: Just my Personal opinion.


#3

Pioneer or not, it is a private business and must turn a profit to remain viable.

It must also generate returns (dividends) that interests investors enough that they are willing to invest their money in the company.

As a publicly listed company, they must meet their obligations to report their financial status, so that the shareholders can make an informed decision regarding their continued investment in the company.

While OCZs SSDs are leading performance drives, they also come at a premium to other brands, and it’s up to consumers to decide whether the established brand name stands for quality/reliability and justifies the premium, or whether they are budget constrained and opt for a less established/lost performance unit.

Truthfully, the performance of ssds is now relatively consolidated and performance differences are relatively trivial between top brands and budget brands, and reliability/endurance is a factor which cannot be determined reliably at the time of purchase for current product.
Warranty support is not a substitute for a good product, something that OCZ may very well have found during the vertex 2 debacle. I’ve had 2x vertex 2 ssds replaced out of 2 original drives, and one of those drives was replaced twice - basically OCZ have provided me 5x ssds for the price of 2, and paid for international shipping(out of their own pocket) three times.


#4

[QUOTE=debro;2689032]Pioneer or not, it is a private business and must turn a profit to remain viable.

It must also generate returns (dividends) that interests investors enough that they are willing to invest their money in the company.

As a publicly listed company, they must meet their obligations to report their financial status, so that the shareholders can make an informed decision regarding their continued investment in the company.

While OCZs SSDs are leading performance drives, they also come at a premium to other brands, and it’s up to consumers to decide whether the established brand name stands for quality/reliability and justifies the premium, or whether they are budget constrained and opt for a less established/lost performance unit.

Truthfully, the performance of ssds is now relatively consolidated and performance differences are relatively trivial between top brands and budget brands, and reliability/endurance is a factor which cannot be determined reliably at the time of purchase for current product.
Warranty support is not a substitute for a good product, something that OCZ may very well have found during the vertex 2 debacle. I’ve had 2x vertex 2 ssds replaced out of 2 original drives, and one of those drives was replaced twice - basically OCZ have provided me 5x ssds for the price of 2, and paid for international shipping(out of their own pocket) three times.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with you Debro and your argument is a good one, and many people have posted the same story, but on the other hand there are people like me, who started with the Vertex 2 and moved up the chain to the Vertex 3 and Vertex 4 and Vector and never had a problem. I believe its only the people that have a problem post about it, the people that are completely satisfied and problem free don’t post. Plus I would love to see what the Samsung forum would have to say if they had one. :wink:


#5

Hi,

I cant help but think that the real problem with the books is that there is something very dodgy to be disclosed (I understand that having resigned, founder and former CEO Ryran Petersen left the USA and moved to Panama - I wonder why). So, in turn, I guess the problem with the books is not necessarily a reluctance to move forward, from the current board, but is that they can get the books audited. A Catch 22. I cant imagine there is just a ‘technical accounting’ issue after all this time.

Regds, JR