<If I were unethical I would be talking the stock up, not down.>
So, I take it as you do admit that you are
"talking the stock down" by making up ungrounded
accusations. Good. Just recall yours "AMD designers
are jumping the sinking ship" crapola.
<I am still amazed that you are criticizing other AMD investors for expecting a profit.>
You? Amazed? But I am not amazed that you
are twisting the subject by using term "a profit".
If you would be more ethical, you would notice
that I was objecting to the "30% of the whole
x86 market PROFITS", not "any profits" at all,
as your usage of indefinite article "a" implies.
Yes, under current conditions,
facing with ruthless dominant and paraniodal
monopolist Intel with $BB in cash at hand
and 10X in production capacity,
it is unreasonable to expect "big profits",
if any for the next 2 quarters at least.
The reason I don't believe in the concept of
peaceful co-existence between Intel and
AMD is the Intel business model. The whole
Intel profits are built on ability to
charge arbitrary prices for the high-end
PC processors where they have a monopoly.
Therefore ANY tiny inroad of a competitor
gets directly to the Intel bottom line,
and the only way for Intel to sustain
their profits is to control competition
by keeping them on the "red line". The "peaceful
co-existence" spells for rapid decline
in Intel profits, stock will reflect this and
dive a bit, but then most employee stock
options would be cashed out, many investors
will follow, and avalanche
will begin. So there must be a serious
shake-off before any "competitive co-existence"
can develop.
Many people on this thread do realistically
understand the current market conditions,
and that is why "they let" me "get away
with it". However, I guess they look into
the future while most of you Intel-"helpers"
are still living in the past. |
