How is the flooding in Thailand and the resulting shortages affecting the top two players in the hard-drive industry? Now that Seagate and Western Digital have both released their financial results for the holiday quarter, we can do some comparing and contrasting. Here are the Seagate numbers:
| Q2FY11 | Q1FY12 | Q2FY12 | |
| Revenue | $2.7 billion | $2.8 billion | $3.2 billion |
| Net income | $150 million | $140 million | $563 million |
| Gross margin | 19.5% | 19.5% | 31.6% |
| Shipments | 49 million | 51 million | 47 million |
...and here's how Western Digital fared. (In case you're wondering, WD's last fiscal quarter ended on December 30, just like Seagate's):
| Q2FY11 | Q1FY12 | Q2FY12 | |
| Revenue | $2.5 billion | $2.7 billion | $2.0 billion |
| Net income | $225 million | $239 million | $145 million |
| Gross margin | 19.2% | 20.1% | 32.5% |
| Shipments | 52 million | 58 million | 29 million |
Clearly, Seagate had the better quarter of the two. Not only did it see profits and revenue surge compared to the same quarter a year back, but its hard-drive shipments stayed mostly flat. WD, meanwhile, saw revenue, profits, and shipments fall quite dramatically. Only its gross margin rose—but not enough to make up for the flooding-induced shortages.
According to Dow Jones, Seagate did so well in comparison because its facilities "remained intact" despite the flooding in Thailand. WD wasn't so lucky.
This discussion is now closed.
| MSI's Z87-GD65 Gaming motherboard reviewed | 23 |
| Might as well call it the Xbox One-Eighty now. | +40 |