Add the comparative sensitivities

Suggestion by 76.16.51.44 on 2008-03-12 18:33:56

Add the comparative sensitivities

Add comments or discussion related to this suggestion here.

Numb Ers 14:17, March 12, 2008 (PDT)

I'd love to, but the competitors don't really publish them. If I or someone else could find spec sheets that would actually give the stats, I'd put it up immediately. The only one I've come across that actually mentions sensitivity was Samsung's 1/4" 3mp, but they call their sensitivity "Sensitivity @G". I've looked all over the place to find out what "@G" means, but I can't find anything.

This is pure speculation, but considering the drastic gap between OmniVision and the competitors', technologically, in all other areas such as HDR, Scalado compatibility, etc., I don't think the competition is in the mood to highlight their shortcomings.

Thank-you very much for the suggestion!

This article is one of the most comprehensive I have seen on this site. ...

Suggestion by Tim Plaehn on 2008-02-27 14:31:49

This article is one of the most comprehensive I have seen on this site. There is a huge amount of information here. My biggest issue is maybe there is too much information. I would like to make a couple of suggestions. The first is minor: Since this is a U.S. based company the dollar figures can be written like this: $100 million. The word Dollar is not necessary. Next, I think the contents outline could be compressed. One number only past the decimal would reduce the size by 18 lines. Now down to your news items. That again can be reduced. I would limit it to the last 10 to 15. Older news will not be of interest to your reader. Finally, the analysis and pundits section would be a better fit in the Bulls tab. I especially like reading bulls and bears arguments and I think most people will be more interested in reading the info if it is placed there. I hope these suggestions help you make this article even better, it is really well put together.

Add comments or discussion related to this suggestion here.

Numb Ers 10:10, February 27, 2008 (PST) I appreciate that, but I just wrote the stuff down. Other people really found all of the non-financial information. I know it's a lot, but I'm trying to keep in the Philip Fisher scuttlebutt theme, that more is more. Also, before I started this, trying to keep track of the company was a nightmare. The industry seems to change direction every other week or so. After all, the industry is really only 7 years old and 2 or 3 years old if you mark CMOS's move into the majority of sensors. I've tried to compress the outline, but so far, this as much as I can do. Also, media formatting is not my forte.  :)) Yeah, I was thinking about trimming the news, but when I look at the entries from November, they shed light on what's happening today. They also give a "looking forward" feel that we don't normally have in the present when looking back. I'll probably reorganize into years and months or something. I know that this page overall seems to have a "bullish" feel, but it's extremely difficult to put down facts about the company without seeming fanatical or overly supportive. If you'd like to rewrite the voice, please do, but facts are facts, and again, I have to plead incompetence to publishing skills. I encourage you to follow the links and see if I've gone overboard. I think the facts presented on the page are identical to what's published in the references. The analysts and press have historically ignored the facts, presaged doom, and ignored their past errors. I'm sorry they've acted this way, but they did. No one asked them to write such poor analysis, but here we are. Those examples I've provided are only the tip of the iceberg. If the past research reports were free, the examples would be too numerous to cite without proper compensation for the writer.  :)) Also, if there was anything favorable that they've said, I'd publish that, but that's next to impossible to find. Thanks again. It's great to have some feedback!

Hey Numb Ers - one thing that might be helpful is if you can cite stats ...

Suggestion by Parkerconrad on 2008-02-14 22:05:18

Hey Numb Ers - one thing that might be helpful is if you can cite stats to support the following (or at least be more specific as to what you mena) in the intro: "OmniVision has the widest selection of products. OmniVision is present in the most amount of markets. They also are frequently the first to market with the latest technology." IE, what do you mena they have the widest selection of products? can you cite the number of products for them vs. competitors, or give some examples of in-demand products which only they carry? Can you give examples of products for which they have been first to market? Without that, it risks sounding editorialized, or coming across as too "pro-omnivision".

Numb Ers 14:56, February 14, 2008 (PST)

The problem is that analysts are terribly lazy. The press is just as lazy. Both report inaccuracies constantly. There are no good statistics anywhere. No other company produces CMOS image sensors for medical. I haven't figured out how to prove a negative yet, that the competition doesn't produce sensors for laryngoscopy, colonoscopy, etc.  ;) Also, the competitors don't really organize their products very well unlike OmniVision who puts their whole product line on one page. I could cite, but the reference tags would be something like 20 or 30 long because of resolutions and possibly markets. As for first to market, I think there are a few references. Two new products are explicit (the 2mp and the HD chip), and the rest are found in cites supporting other points. I'll link to the PR history where OmniVision has made those claims; will that work? I have listed the largest competitors, and there are a few links in the references section that point toward their product pages, so someone can easily see that those statements are true if they go down the rabbit hole. This is pretty much the state of the market: MU tried to give OmniVision a run for its' money back in late 2006/early 2007 but found that they really can't compete, with reasons listed in the article, especially that new 2 chip HD solution as a good example (the new TrueFocus can't even succeed as a two chip, so that should give an indication of how much of a failure MU's new HD chip is, given the capabilities of Wavefront Coding). The best MU could come up with were a few automotive chips. That's about as far outside the mainstream that anyone's gone. Just a quick look at the other major sensor producers, aside from OmniVision and MU, being Samsung, Toshiba, and STM (and sometimes MagnaChip) shows that they are having a hard enough time producing mainstream chips. The statistics on the latest 2mp and 3mp chips plainly show this, if you note the added functionality of the OmniVision chips vs. the competitors'. Trust me, if there were more functionality to those chips, they'd be found by now by the investorvillage site. The posters there are rabid about nailing down every single detail. There really are no offerings for medical. Everyone still seems to be ignoring automotive except for OmniVision and MU (considering the veritable plummet in MU's VGA unit sales, it looks like they've given up on automotive, as well). It also looks like OmniVision is the only company trying to produce CMOS for security. This, of course, will all change when OmniVision proves these markets like when they proved CMOS in the first place, but the current state is that OmniVision is the market outside the mainstream for the most part. Actually, I've seen nothing from the competition talking about computers which have recently caught fire (laptops and monitors, specifically). Thank-you for the suggestions, and I'll try to back up statements that aren't found in the references as best as I can.


This is the most complete information set on Omnivision

Suggestion by 74.33.19.47 on 2008-01-18 23:31:39

This is the most complete information set on Omnivision

Add comments or discussion related to this suggestion here.

Industry Characteristics=>Business Models: Definitions

I'm especially interested in the Industry Characteristics=>Business Models section, where you define Fab, Fabless, and IP Factory. These defs have come into play on other articles I'm working on that make semiconductor chips - any chance you'd be willing to create definition pages for these terms? You just click through the link, type
at the top of the new page to add the definition template, and then type the text. I could do a little research and add these myself - but you're more of an expert for sure.

Adamfarren 11:07, May 7, 2008 (PDT)

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki