Kash: If you disagree with me.. thats fine.. but stooping to insults (calling me clueless) adds nothing to the debate here. Now.. onto your points.
Kash: "No major OEM availability"
That doesnt appear to have prevented AMD from selling all the Durons out this quarter - or analysts basically disagreeing with you:
"Dan Hutcheson, the president of VLSI Research Inc., a San Jose-based research firm, ...reports -- and most analysts agree --that AMD's microprocessor sales are ROLLING along. (EDIT: my block letters)
With the addition of a new plant in Dresden, Germany, AMD has said that it plans to double the shipments of its seventh-generation processors -- the Athlon and Duron lines -- in each of the next two quarters."
www7.mercurycenter.com
A total contradiction of your assessment.
Kash: "AMD is losing market share"
I would like to see the link or links showing where you have evidence to back up this highly debatable assertion.. I have seen nothing on the hardware sites that indicate AMD is losing market share. I contend you're doing pure speculation on the hypothesis that since no "major" OEM's are selling Durons, then that must naturally mean AMD is losing marketshare.. a highly questionable thesis without evidence to back it up.
Kash: "AMD PR BS"
Let's see..
--AMD beats Intel to the 1ghz punch, so Intel rushes out a paper launch saying they have a 1ghz as well that runs faster.. 6-8 months later, the 1ghz shows up on major vendor sites after being virtually nowhere to be seen. Meanwhile, AMD is able according to market research to be outselling Intel in the 1ghz field by a 12-1 margin.
-- Intel looks to repeat the PR paper launch with the 1.13ghz PIII.. again.. only in "very limited quantities".. meanwhile.. AMD is prepared to release its response, in all likelihood a 1.1 ghz T-bird (which is a whole 30 mhz slower then the paper version of the P III and yet Intel questionably asserts it has the speed crown back) and accoridng to what I've read in hardware sites, "available immediately and in quantity"
--Intel uses its massive PR machine to try to foist Rambus and RDRAM on the computer masses.. insisting its the greatest thing since sliced bread to hit the market. and that its performance justifies the extra cost over SDRAM to buy it and the accompanying more expensive Intel-designed chipset for it... and then goes strangely silent when independent hardware vendors and their own benchmarks completely refute that claim. Intel beats a quiet retreat to try and give SDRAM support to the P IV, in the midst of the i820 fiasco. AMD meanwhile quietly supports the DDR SDRAM initiative.. and has gotten punished on here for the delay on DDR RAM motherboards when I really think they've tried to be careful everything works with the platform so they dont have to go thru an embarrassing recall like Intel had to do.
Who has been BS'ing the investor more? AMD or Intel? More appalling ...Intel has been pulling the wool over investors eyes and getting away with it due to slick PR and its "reputation".. Can you honestly disagree with me when I contend if the positions were reversed and it was AMD flubbing the RDRAM issue, forced to recall boards because of failures, and pushing back launch dates (ie Timna) and doing paper launches of products that werent available for several months... while Intel executed a smooth product launch with relatively minor chipset irritation from VIA that AMD would be around 10$ by now while Intel would be at 250$??? Conversely.. I agree with some other ppl on here who think the AMD PR dept hasnt been aggressive ENOUGH in pushing of its acheivements/products.
Kash: The "smart money sold out"
Again.. more quotes from analysts disagreeing:
"There are some encouraging signs that this AMD is different from the old AMD. First, the gross margins -- how much the company makes on each sale above manufacturing costs -- has increased from 44 to 47 percent, a sign of increased efficiency. Second, AMD's debt has gone down. It recently agreed to repurchase a group of 11 percent notes, and it made use of cheap loans from the German government to build its Dresden plant.
So, the bottom line: Is this stock worth buying? At its current price, you can make a case for yes. Both its forward-looking price-earnings ratio (12 to 1) and its price-revenue ratio (a little more than 2 to 1) are attractive for its industry. Nonetheless, you've got to have plenty of Maalox on hand."
Also from www7.mercurycenter.com
My contention? The smart money are those that were brave enough to stay in long term.. not those who sold out.
In essence Kash.. I believe you think the glass is half empty.. while I think the glass is 3/4 full. We'll see in 3-6 months whether I was right or not. |
