Alien Challenges Yield Figures

Written by Evan Schuman
July 31st, 2006

After stepping back from its planned IPO last Friday to ?when market conditions improve,? an Alien Technology executive stepped through the quiet period curtain long enough to defend the company?s manufacturing yield and how the company?s IPO was delayed.

Linda Prosser, Alien?s corporate marketing VP, said the company had always been slated to go IPO last Friday and that the decision to move it to day-by-day status?where the company is not saying that it will go public on any particular day, but is awaiting better market conditions?was not related to anything about Alien’s financial health or product status and that the only influences were “geopolitical events.”

But Prosser mostly wanted to refute some comments made on these pages by a veteran analyst?Pete Abell–now working for IDC.

“The key problem is that they continue to hemorrhage money. Their highly self-touted FSA manufacturing process gets yields in the 15 percent range, and they currently sell readers to Wal-Mart at $200 below manufacturing cost,” Abell, the program director for RFID at IDC’s Manufacturing Insights, said in the stories from Friday. He added that Texas Instruments “has a great new UHF chip just certified by EPCglobal, which will compete with Impinj, and Alien’s is an also-ran.” TI announced the availability of that chip on Monday, July 31.

Prosser went on-the-record?which is unusual during a company’s quiet period?to dispute Abell’s 15 percent yield statement, dubbing the claim “absolutely and dramatically incorrect information.” When asked what an accurate yield would be, she initially said it would be “competitive” and then?when prompted?said that would be “north of 90 percent” and quickly amended that to be “north of 80 percent.”

Abell, reached Monday night, stood by his original figures. “Every person that has been to their factory [who Abell has spoken with] says it has been in the 15 percent range,” he said.

Abell added that even if the figure was 90 percent, it would still be inadequate. “Even 90 percent is not good enough because you’re still throwing away too many chips,” he said.

Prosser took exception to the Wal-Mart reference, dismissing it as an old rumor that has never been confirmed. Asked if it’s indeed incorrect, she said that it was not completely accurate as it was phrased, but that she couldn’t clarify because pricing information about customers is strictly confidential.

On Monday, Abell also said that the TI chip availability announcement “really nails the coffin closed on Alien’s IPO.”


One Comment | Read Alien Challenges Yield Figures

  1. Chris Kapsambelis Says:

    Stand Back. The bubble is about to burst.
    RFID costs too much to make. RFID costs too much to use. And, RFID is unreliable (See “Aberdeen: Major RFID Hurdles Ahead”)


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.