- Posts: 277
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:06 pm
Costa wrote:Sorry Pete but when the original sensor issue occurred 5% were ok and were shipped. The implication is that they are still getting bad sensors but not ALL of them are bad, hence the limited volumes shipped. The newest statement DOES contradict the last. At this point if every sensor was checked and ok'd (even if it is going slowly) so far they would go with it. Simple.
Not really. At no point does Lam's statement say that any had actually failed any tests. That statement or is required for it to contradict the previous Perry.
If I'm still using a slow checking procedure on a product thats keeping me well below the production targets I'm looking at, the very best that my opinion on the component causing this is can be is not happy.
Without a defintion of whats required to be happy all we are doing is guessing as to what not happy means and therefore what Lam's statement means.
One possible definition is that a whole batch of sensors has to pass before they are happy, and at the time of each statement they still hadnt completed a batch (and at a few cameras a day they might not have finsished a batch).
At the point of Perry's statement they were not happy with the sensors, how can we tell, they werent stepping up production, as that is what the problem apparently is. At Lam's they still werent happy.
It's telling that it wasnt Perry that made the latest statment. It most likely means that it was most likely a sop to those demanding updates even when theres no change.
Odd to see that otheres seem to have read Perry's statement as bmeaning they are further along than I did. I'm usuually an optomist, but to me it still read like a theres still a problem here kids but whe think thats the end of the tunnel gliimering up there, not another mirror reflecting your torch so can you lower the pitch fork slightly. That may well be where the contradictory thing appears, an over optomistic reading of the 1st post.
Note I'm in no way trying to exscuse BM here I'm just saying that I read their 1st statement differenty, meaning I find it entirely in step with the second.