Breaking: Trading on OCZ shares suspended

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: Breaking: Trading on OCZ shares suspended[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2011/03/ocz2.png[/newsimage]

At this moment trading of OCZ shares has been suspended by the NASDAQ. The shares are currently frozen at a value of $0.63.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/breaking-trading-on-ocz-shares-suspended-69686/](http://www.myce.com/news/breaking-trading-on-ocz-shares-suspended-69686/)

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

#2

Sad day in the World of SSD Technology


#3

Don’t you think OCZ betrayed itself long ago by abandoning so much and so many of what made it great in the first place just to adopt SSD after noticing Samsung and other South Korean SSD experts pioneering the new technology and new market?

It’s far easier and less risky to stand on top of what others have experimented for years. Mtron suffered a most cruel death, for example, though it was the only well-known large-scale supplier of popular SLC-based SSD beside Samsung. Apple killed iRiver, almost, by releasing iPod even though iRiver was popular and elegant years before when the first iPod was being conceived and the very concept of MP3 players was largely Korean.

OCZ was and has always been a company copying and reselling what others made just like many of the most popular computer part brands based in the US on eBay, Amazon, Newegg, Bestbuy, etc. OCZ was great because it was good at SELECTING East Asian suppiers that design and manufacture parts and sell them to OCZ at ridiculously low cost so that OCZ can make greatest profits. That strategy works well for many others like OCZ and the greatest example is Apple. Profits left for those producers in Taiwan, China, and South Korea are so small when you divide profits by the number of researchers and factory workers. OCZ failed because it no more concentrated on parts like DRAM modules, graphic cards, power supply units, etc. OCZ tried to force itself to believe they are SSD experts when most of that belief was based on nearly noting. What OCZ was good, better than any other company making SSD, at was selling words for marketing to be posted on websites like Anandtech. The good image worked well for OCZ for some years for some consumers that focus on the number of stars the reviewers give to each review. I didn’t.

OCZ could not control the SSD industry because it knew nothing about it, and none of the real leaders bothered. Even Apple and others on the very place OCZ was headquartered at did not buy SSD from OCZ.

It was a different story with Indilinx. But I have known hundreds, thousands of other South Korean “venture” firms that have had similar fates and some of them have been mentioned by members other than myself on this place as well. They have not been as successful as the likes the founders of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. But many of them are personally rich enough to last for life. The owner of Kakaotalk is one of them, leading a smartphone-based app with more than 50 million most loyal users, but the founders came from NHN of Naver which in turn was from a Samsung subsidiary. They create their own companies for profits, and only for profits, after gaining insights and access to partners and near secrets in the world of treading and technology R&D. Selling their company to OCZ was profitable for themselves, but the rest of OCZ also wanted to be sold to still another. They could have stayed at Samsung and none forced them to leave. They left merely to become another Facebook, another 29-year-old superhero worth US$2,000,000,000. OCZ and Indilinx had their chance and they failed, but they had successes enough, so I think that’s also justice, fair enough.

There’s always one question not answered here. You yourself (or yourselves) could have become an OCZ investor. Why did you not buy OCZ itself if OCZ was so great? And if you are not buying OCZ stocks, why do you expect much better informed people to do so?


#4

Hi Kenny, I think its more of a fact that they cannot compete with Samsung or Toshiba. I just bought a 1TB Samsung EVO for less than 500USD, their new OCZ Vector 150 480gb is 489.00 on Newegg and no discounts at all. Toshiba has their new Q series 512gb for 299.99 at Newegg, how can OCZ compete?


#5

[QUOTE=alan1476;2710923]Hi Kenny, I think its more of a fact that they cannot compete with Samsung or Toshiba. I just bought a 1TB Samsung EVO for less than 500USD, their new OCZ Vector 150 480gb is 489.00 on Newegg and no discounts at all. Toshiba has their new Q series 512gb for 299.99 at Newegg, how can OCZ compete?[/QUOTE]

Why should OCZ compete? Don’t you really think OCZ should have concentrated on RAM? Or, PSU?

SSD was destined to rule, destined to replace HDD, and that meant far larger markets to include new markets for storage inside devices of various future form factors (not yet born in those years.) It was apparent, and should have been part of predictable linear futures, that Toshiba and Intel would join Samsung and all the largest PC makers would, too.

Consumers still buy specialty RAM modules with names like G.Skill and Mushkin on them. They willingly pay twice more than products from Hynix and Samsung. Niche market brands can only make profits by selling at higher profits, or by reducing cost to nearly zero, but G.Skill and OCZ cannot make the cost of buying chips close to zero when the chips account for approximately half of the retail cost of the final products sold to end users.

I saw people on MyCE and Anandtech praising OCZ’s decision to buy Indilinx. Wans’t it an act of monopoly? Since when a monopoly, the notion of a proprietary chip, became the industry standard of innovative and pioneering technology companies? I saw the same people praise OCZ for having contributed to making SSD ubiquitous. But Indilinx sold the chips they sold to OCZ also to many others which should have helped to increase competition and lowering the cost of building an SSD by a tiny bit, at least by US$0.1. OCZ stopped that.

One more thing OCZ did to kill its own competive edge: to diversify, to specialize. OCZ has been a tiny company, little left for R&D and manufacturing facilities of their own. What’s there in storage to have to release dozens of different models with different specifications? It costs a lot to have to write manuals, for example. Since I’m a translator writing those very manuals, I know how much they cost, down to word level. The total cost of marketing can be many times more and each of its importers, wholesalers, “service” agencies, resellers, and even reviewers on independent websites like MyCE, has to be contacted and supplied with information and samples. OCZ was bold to release PCIe cards with onboard HDD and four controller chips, but how many did it expect to be sold to end users and enterprises, respectively?

The worst of it’s that the people in Silicon Valley and investors all over the US stop investing not longer than three months after the signs. There have been so many contradictions.


#6

Toshiba 512GB for US$299 seems like the best buy for now. It’s a bit faster than Samsung’s EVO 500GB, but also a little cheaper and longevity should be at least a little better since it’s MLC vs. TLC. This only means the price of low-end 500GB will soon be lowered to under US$250.

Unfortunately, I have to pay US$130 more for the same product, and US$250 more for EVO 1TB.


#7

why is it a sad day" when they were a company who’s primary products were adhesive labels?

OCS is a “re-labeler” far more than they’ve been a manufacturer.

They are also a company that has NEVER (to my knowledge) posted a profit.

To my untrained eyes it looks like a financial scam against anyone foolish enough to buy their stock and the product they produced


#8

I thought OCZ was basically a deal-maker: excess quantity here, excess quantity there, distribution contracts, and get all the parties to make money using OCZ’s label.

OCZ bought up a controller, then they had new managers-leaders, dumping their founder and this must be what the new folks want.

They achieved it forthwith. I don’t think I’ve seen a new board come in and destroy a respected company so fast.


#9

The latest news appears to be that OCZ has filed for bankruptcy at the same time as announcing an offer from Toshiba to acquire the majority of the company’s assets.

I don’t know what the procedure will now be but on the face of it I hope that Toshiba completes the transaction as this looks to be by far the best option for OCZ’s employees and IMO for the market at large.

http://ir.ocz.com/news/detail/3004/ocz-filing-for-bankruptcy-announces-offer-from-toshiba-to-purchase-assets

Fingers crossed.

Regds, JR


#10

Auctions and petitions, sounds complicated.

OCZ once sold Samsung SSDs as their own as well. A similar thing happened a while ago: Toshiba Korea selling their own SSD in South Korea just months after LG Electronics started selling Toshiba SSDs under LG name. Toshiba with both OCZ and Indilinx would make things look even funnier.


#11

Good job copying our news again, this time without a link back to TT.

I’m not sure how OCZ is doing well on the enterprise side. Enterprise sales tell us they can’t sell hardly anything.


#12

I would like remind everyone, and especially those who like to kick someone when they are down.

These are the facts.
Currently, there is only one manufacturer who makes everything in-house for consumer grade SSDs, and that is Samsung. They make the controller, NAND, and even the cache.

No one else makes everything in-house, not even Toshiba, Intel or Micron.
Intel use their own controller in their enterprise grade SSDs, but use SandForce for their consumer grade SSDs. Another thing that was proved to be false, was Intel never ever had the SandForce SF22xx series firmware source code, so could never have had their own firmware.

Toshiba used a re-badged JMicron controller in their early SSDs, and the last one that I reviewed had a re-badged Marvell controller.

Toshiba, Micron/Crucial, Intel and Sandisk use their own NAND, they all rely on someone else making the controller.

OCZ make their own controller (Indilinx Barefoot 3), and rely on third parties for the NAND.

To use the ‘just a re-labeller’ when talking about OCZ is deeply disrespectful, as everyone except Samsung is in the same boat.


#13

Disrespectful of OCZ? they are one of the worst companies of all time. I l enjoy watching the stock crash and burn right now in real time. This was a long time coming.


#14

Simple.

Samsung made drives and sold them to OCZ. OCZ rebadged.

Toshiba made drives and sold them to LG. LG rebadged.

Indilinx designed controllers (without fab) and sold them to many. OCZ rebadged, but not the chips.

OCZ bought Indilinx, the whole of it, because Indilinx was desperate, for cash, because it was driven into oblivion, like Mtron. On OCZ’s part, Indilinx was chosen not because it was excellent, but because the cost of acquisition was cheap - meaning they accepted the deal because they wanted to be employed to receive monthly salaries from OCZ whereas a certain percentage of OCZ stocks would have meant little to other controller makers like Marvell and SandForce.

By the time Indilinx became part of OCZ, I doubt anything worked to foster creativity. What was being disintegrated is not just the former owner and management. The announcement was clear: almost everyone with important roles was fired.

So which aspect, which part of OCZ do you have to miss? I haven’t seen anyone posting the inside stories anywhere. Nothing, no post from any of the original Indilinx guys. No picture, no more stories of developing, exchanging ideas, marketing in real time.

As for labelling OCZ as a relabeller, I think that was from very old days, during the early years of OCZ, long before OCZ decided to move into SSD business.


#15

I don’t even think the barefoot is theirs either. I don’t believe it is their controller. They lied the first time around and had to admit it was just a re-badged Marvell, and i think the new one is, too. Anyone else think it is suspicious that they still had the Aragon Co-processor with the ‘new’ one, the same component that they lied about with the marvell?
Also, if they actually had a controller they would have been bought long ago. Toshiba would have bought them outright.


#16

[QUOTE=Kenshin;2710964]Simple.

Samsung made drives and sold them to OCZ. OCZ rebadged.

Toshiba made drives and sold them to LG. LG rebadged.

Indilinx designed controllers (without fab) and sold them to many. OCZ rebadged, but not the chips.

OCZ bought Indilinx, the whole of it, because Indilinx was desperate, for cash, because it was driven into oblivion, like Mtron. On OCZ’s part, Indilinx was chosen not because it was excellent, but because the cost of acquisition was cheap - meaning they accepted the deal because they wanted to be employed to receive monthly salaries from OCZ whereas a certain percentage of OCZ stocks would have meant little to other controller makers like Marvell and SandForce.

By the time Indilinx became part of OCZ, I doubt anything worked to foster creativity. What was being disintegrated is not just the former owner and management. The announcement was clear: almost everyone with important roles was fired.

So which aspect, which part of OCZ do you have to miss? I haven’t seen anyone posting the inside stories anywhere. Nothing, no post from any of the original Indilinx guys. No picture, no more stories of developing, exchanging ideas, marketing in real time.

As for labelling OCZ as a relabeller, I think that was from very old days, during the early years of OCZ, long before OCZ decided to move into SSD business.[/QUOTE]

So I guess I don’t have to ask what happens to my 5 year warrantee on my Vectors. Maybe with a bit of luck, Toshiba will make good on the warrantee, maybe not.:wink:


#17

[QUOTE=alan1476;2710976]So I guess I don’t have to ask what happens to my 5 year warrantee on my Vectors. Maybe with a bit of luck, Toshiba will make good on the warrantee, maybe not.;)[/QUOTE]

If Toshiba buys OCZ, Toshiba should have to. It would look embarrassing if the used markets with voided warranty are filled with OCZ SSDs with Toshiba chips inside.


#18

I just had a Vector serviced a few months ago. Hopefully it will hold up or Toshiba will take over.

Never was a fan of Samsung as a company but that is what I recommended clients buy since I could not in good conscience allow someone who did not know better buy from a company on think financial footing.

  • I am surprised Toshiba or someone else did not but them before bankruptcy.

#19

I am quite sure if Toshiba does buy OCZ, they will do the right thing regarding warranty.


#20

The whole point of buying them after they file bankruptcy is so that they do NOT have to honor the warranties. They have the worst RMA rate in the industry, period. No one would buy debt, that isn’t how business works.