SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elmer who wrote (90166)1/28/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: Kevin K. Spurway  Read Replies (2) of 1574489
 
Re: "Therefore Intel cannot be a Monopoly, successful or otherwise."

That doesn't necessarily hold true, Elmer. I don't think there's any question that Intel would be better off now if it had additional capacity. The fact that they didn't have it is therefore an error in business judgement. Intel took the gamble that it wasn't needed, and lost. It happens.

My only point is that the stupidity of the error is magnified because of Intel's unique position of dominance in the market. In 1999 Intel had OVER 100% of the total profits of the x86 CPU industry. Extraordinary profits like this are more worthwhile defending than normal competitive market profits. Smart companies making this kind of profit take extraordinary steps to defend their position. It seems to me that by failing to conservatively budget capacity for forecast demand, Intel failed to take these steps. As a result, Intel opened itself up to competitive attack. As a result, Intel lost Gateway exclusivity, and has been damaged in other ways as well.

Kevin
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News