Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Process Boy who wrote (65746)	7/16/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) of 1573953

PB RE: "AMD could have had a different strategy that was less obvious than coming out and beating its chest that it was going for 30% market share within and that was going to come right out of Intel's pocket." Maybe the brick wall comes up because maybe the point keeps being missed. For which are your going to pay more, a diamond from Tiffany's or a solitaire diamond from Generics, Inc? To insure there is no confusion, the right answer for this argument is Tiffany's. In other words you have to charge less for something that is worth less if you want to stay in business......I am sure you know that......its a basic premise in business. So what happened last quarter is that intc kept lowering its prices on its chips which forced AMD to lower its prices in order for it could still compete and sell some of its chips. It doesn't matter if AMD dropped its drawers and mooned intc in order to sell more chips......its the economics that played the primary role and not AMD's attitude. If you go back to what I said yesterday......there were too many chips for the marketplace to absorb. As much as we like to complain about intc I don't believe intc's lowering of prices was primarily to screw AMD. I think it was to insure that there was no production overruns. INTC did not want to be stuck with surplus chips like AMD which AMD's admits are pretty much worthless now. Recognizing all that, it is not hard to conclude that if it became necessary last quarter, intc may well have sold chips below cost.....which is where the argument of predatory pricing enters the picture. The line here is very thin and I don't want to get into it again. But like with everything else there are two sides of a story and for some reason we all have difficulty seeing anything but our own side. ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next