Mary, first of all:
Enough of my complaints. You have heard them all too often before.
Au Contraire, we need to hear them. It's called objectivity, which a lot of us tend to sweep under the rug, instead always looking for good news.
If you and I both can see that speed is very important, than why could not Intel see it?
This confuses me. I thought you were complaining about Intel being a bit too preoccupied with the speed crown. Now you're saying why didn't they see speed as important.
The Intel apologists (or bad behavior enablers) on this thread will tell us that it is not easy to predict revenues - because
there are so many variables. Doesn't Cisco, Lucent, Msft, Yahoo, AOL, and others all have the same set of problems. Yet
they always seem to meet earnings expectations.
That's quite a mixed bag. The internuts are far, far more scrutinized for revenue growth than for earnings. Earnings are a nice to have but not primary. I know that the 2 you mention, AOL and Yahoo do have their minus earnings days behind them. Microsoft. What can you say about them. If ever a company could manage earnings...capital exp. near zilch except bricks and mortar; little competition. Nuf said. Cisco I think is now in the top 3 management-wise BUT THEY HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF AN INTERNET THAT'S APPROXIMATELY DOUBLING IN SIZE, WITH NO END IN SIGHT, EVERY YEAR. You or I could maybe manage that. Lucent is slammed every now and then, I believe, for top line growth.
Just have a another minute here...tough things for Intel have been plummeting PC average prices people are willing to spend, and their need to be just the opposite of Microsoft re capital....humongous (hate that word) process and mfg equipment requirements (a reason I LOVE owning AMAT).
Gotta run. Don't know if I said much.
Tony
|
