RE <<<Actually, such "cooperation" is illegal price fixing :-)but we all know it goes on daily, for example in the Airline industry.>>>
Dan, when I said cooperation, I did not mean collusion. Illegal price fixing occurs when two competitive parties sit down and agree to set the same prices for their respective products, and that's called collusion. My use of the word cooperate in no way was meant to have the same intent at all.
RE <<<From Intel's perspective, I think it's AMD that is refusing to cooperate, since AMD has to sell chips at a lower price to compensate for their lack of marketing and brand recognition. Even if it's only a little lower, it is seen by Intel, not unreasonably, as a "price war" move, and Intel responds.>>>
If things are as robust sales-wise as everyone claims and all available chips are spoken for, then what's it to intc if they get paid a few dollars more for the same chip speed grade as AMD. Something doesn't make sense here.
Either there is not the demand for chips that everyone claims and AMD and intc are fighting it out, or intc wants to thwart any sales gains on the part of AMD at any cost. For whatever its worth I am beginning to believe the latter. And what p*sses me off is that I think that intc is telling their oems that they will match AMD's prices but then they fail to deliver the chips because they are, in fact, all sold out. And intc can get away with this sh*t because they are intc.
So now, what do you believe?
ted |
