Eric,
Perhaps I was a little arrogant there. However, you must admit that the response, "How long do you think Intel is going to keep stumbling?" or "Intel lets AMD survive for the sake of keeping away the DOJ" is used very frequently by Intel longs and does not exactly represent analysis. There have also been several posts that have said that technology is irrelevant and marketing totally determines success. Implicit in this statement is, "I will only analyze those things that I understand, and dismiss everything else."
I've used both of those statements, and I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion you present. Saying that Intel is stumbling and will come back is anlaysis -- it's just not some kind of "engineering-style", or technology, analysis your looking for. It's business analysis. It's looking at the history of the company and how it has been managed to reach the conclusion that it will react in a similar manner to how it's reacted in the past.
Your second point about marketing and technology is actually incorrect. No one has ever said that the technology is irrelevant. In fact, everyone here believes that the RDRAM technology is extremely relevant (and damn good!). The point, however, is that now that the technology works and is being delivered, the priority of other aspects of the business is heightened. Production has to be increased so that prices come down. Marketing has to continue to present the image that RDRAM is moving along the path to success (by visiting writers like Anand to make sure they understand the roadmap, publishing new design win stories, etc.). And so on.
What you will find on this board (at least from me) are posts that point out that every aspect of a business -- marketing, engineering, manufacturing, etc., etc., etc. -- are important to the business and that it's difficult, in fact almost impossible, to be wildly successful without having them all working well. That's in counterpoint to the attitude by many of the naysayers that show up that RDRAM will fail because of some obscure technical point.
It sounds to me as if you are the one only analyzing the things you understand by not including these historical and business factors in your analysis. You, for example, should be able to show why it's different this time from every other time AMD has made a little headway only to be slammed back to earth by both Intel and their own hands. If you can't do it from a business perspective, then you should expect that Intel, with all of the resources at its disposal will do to AMD what it's always done -- keep it pinned down "just enough" to keep the DOJ off its back. It's happened before and unless something has changed, it'll happen again. For example, while I don't hold AMD or INTC, I suspect that at least some of the factors in the past have changed -- in the past AMD usually shot themselves through lousy production, but my impression from the little I know about them is that they're doing much better (or will be) at it).
But don't confuse the fact that other business factors are increasing in importance with anyone saying the technology is irrelevant.
Dave
p.s. I apologize if I'm not getting the joke, but 'Mwa' should be 'Moi', French for 'Me'. |
