I love it! With all the talk of AMD's success as evidence that Intel is not a Gorilla, I just learned something about the degree of their success from a Fool article: "On track for its first profitable year since 1995, ... to maintain profitability it must overcome the recent cancellation of the Mustang chip and delays in chips for notebook computers."
For complete context: fool.com;
I must concur with the majority on the opinion of the resident carpetologist. Isn't this exactly, I mean textbook, what the Manual states about the behavior of monkeys. They eat the table scraps, and from time to time will take advantage of gorilla slip-ups, but that these incursions into the gorilla territory will be short-lived and harshly dealt with by the gorilla through architectural change and other uses of the value chain.
Here AMD took advantage of a very difficult product transition, INTC' first major architectural change in what, coincidentally, 5 years or thereabouts? Is it a coincidence that AMD's last profitable year according to the article cited by Mr. Buckley is 1995, exactly when INTC was making another architectural change?
What it seems like is happening, and I talked about this in regard to RMBS even as far back as last January or so (if memory serves) is that AMD is taking advantage of the difficult transitional period of introducing a new architecture, but that even now signs of AMD falling back as the gorilla gets farther along into embedding the new architecture into the market.
AT least IMHO what is happening between INTC and AMD is so much to the script specified in the manual that it leads even more credence to the argument that INTC is, was, and will be the gorilla of the PC CPU market (that is of course if you believe in Moore's definitions - which of course is what the entire thread is based on).
Tinker
Former counsel for Gore et al., and of course now out of work:) so looking to take on new clientele. Might as well be that big ape Intel. |
