Here's an Intel fan if I've ever seen one!
marketingdirector.org
Top Ten Reasons Why Craig Barrett, Intel’s CEO, Should Be Fired
1. Intel has purposefully misled investors and analysts by saying that weak demand was the problem rather than a series of disasters. In the last few years, Intel has delayed and abandoned multiple projects as well as the infamous 1.13 GHz recall.
2. Intel’s vast underestimation of AMD will cause from a 300-500 MHz speed gap by Jan. 2001.
3. Intel is literally falling apart under Craig Barrett’s administration. (Stock price, employee morale, product inferiority, shipping delays)
4. Intel represents what most people hate about large companies: Mistreating employees, misleading investors, and using every means at their disposal to brainwash the public into buying their inferior products both in terms of quality and performance.
5. Intel’s collusion with Rambus was nothing short of an illegal attempt to try to monopolize the PC ram market. Rambus bribed Intel with millions of stock options in exchange for Intel promoting Rambus. Rambus should do the whole world a favor by setting themselves on fire and jumping into the nearest body of placid water.
6. Craig Barrett’s weak attempt at copying Andy Groves’ hard-handed style has been a disaster by anyone’s reckoning.
7. Intel’s stock has plunged, then plunged, then dropped. Has it stabilized yet?
8. The Intel-pays-my-employer-a-lot-of-money journalists would rather call for the death of the PC industry rather than insinuate than Intel may have "a problem." Intel is the pimp for so many journalists that any attempt to list them would be a Herculean task.
9. Even a child could predict delays and problems for the P4. Any project management mix-up prior to a product’s release spells a lot of trouble. Even then, Intel doesn’t think that the P4 will be in the mainstream until 2002. Who knows if they are lying, but since the press seems to enjoy eating Intel’s vomit, I guess Intel’s lies are as good as anyone else’s truth as long as all the journalists agree. Somewhere down the line, investors lost billions of dollars of value in a short period of time. Seems to me that the lone voice warning people was Van Smith (good friend of mine) of tomshardware.com . People scoffed at him for his criticism of Intel, but what they don’t understand is he, and a handful like him, try to be objective.
Rant Interjected here:
Trying to really be objective in the modern journalist’s world is tantamount to blasphemy. I remember watching CNN after Jesse "the Mind" Ventura was elected to be governor of Minnesota. Some CNN anchor said, "do they (meaning the people of Minnesota) realize what they have done?" This was probably one time when the true bias of journalism actually was exposed for what it really has become: The promotion of a liberal ideal and/or hidden agenda. Fox’s "Fair and Balanced News" is a slap in the face to all other networks by accusing them for being biased. It must horrify CNN to the point where they feel like a dammed soul in hell to actually have a competitor that is not trying to forward some hidden agenda. It actually scares journalists that Jesse Ventura would actually tell people what he believes in, what he feels to be right. Look, I’m not saying I endorse even a fraction of what Jesse Ventura says or does, but what I am saying is that Jesse is his own man thus far, not having sacrificed his principles for ideals as ALL POLITICIANS with the exception of a rare few have done. What I am saying is I AM ACCUSING ALL JOURNALISTS AS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR AND MUST COMPLY WITH THEIR PIMP ADVERTISERS UNLESS THEY EXERCISE GREAT MORAL FORTITUDE. I know there are a lot of great journalists out there who feel constrained by their employer to achieve a certain outcome on a story. This pressure is real. Zdnet was the worst case I’ve ever seen and I feel deep sorrow for those weak journalists who would rather keep their job than report fairly on the news. Editors are reduced to content comptrollers to protect their own interests. Go dig ditches for a living so you can at least pretend you have a little self-respect. Zdnet’s unreasoning mercy on Intel during all of their disasters and their willingness to pounce of the most minor flaw of AMD let many to boycott Zdnet altogether. Of late, Zdnet has been forced by the barrage of reader comment to report more fairly, but they do so with little real desire to do so. I personally think the damage has been done. In reality, there is only one commodity of journalism – that is the trust of the reader. A thousand truths don’t make up for one lie. I wonder if Zdnet’s selling to Cnet had anything to do with this problem?
10. Every Intel fan, analyst, and investor waited patiently for Intel to slap AMD around a little bit, but the slap never came. They waited for AMD to have inferior products, ramp problems and plaguing unprofitably, but they waited in vain. When AMD got clearly ahead in technology and started laying the hurt on Intel, Intel blamed weak demand in Europe. The mainstream press & analysts alike lapped it up, but investors decided to punish the whole Nasdaq, which is heavily weighed by Intel. The stark truth is that AMD & Gateway met or exceeded profit expectations and Dell & Intel disappointed. By February of 2001 (and possibly much sooner), when AMD has consumer/business level CPUs that are several hundred megahertz faster, DELL WILL BE FORCED TO ASK AMD’s IF THEY CAN SELL THEIR HIGH END CHIPS. No choice whatsoever. Michael Dell might as well rip up the secret Dell/Intel agreement because it only worked as long as Intel was dominant. Whether people realize it or not, Intel is losing the battle. AMD is becoming to Intel as Nvidia became to 3dfx. A smaller, but more organized force will often overwhelm the greater, less organized force. The shift in momentum is apparent. The main problem that I have with AMD is that AMD should not be in the low-end CPU business. If the Duron is draining any capacity from producing Athlons whatsoever, they should drop the Duron. AMD simply doesn’t have the capacity to produce the volumes they will need in the low end of the market. If I were AMD I would not sell CPUs to Dell. Michael Dell has spit so many times in AMD’s face that AMD does not have to ask him what he ate for lunch. AMD should turn Dell away because, frankly, when AMD achieves a several hundred megahertz differential, AMD does not need Dell anymore. Was it Madonna that said "The person in the relationship willing to walk away has the power."? That must have been quite the epiphany for a woman who chooses amorous partners with the casualness that most of us have selecting various foods at a buffet. Anyway, right now AMD (thinks it) needs Dell, but soon Dell will need AMD. To be clear why AMD shouldn’t go with Dell, it wasn’t just that Dell didn’t use AMD cpus, it was the fact the Michael Dell has insulted AMD at every opportunity. AMD does not have a stable platform, eh? How about trying to use a CPU originally designed for less than 500 Megahertz that has been overclocked to 1.13 Megahertz? Michael Dell & other large computers makers should personally thank Dr. Thomas Pabst (also of tomshardware.com ) for saving their faces from colliding with a significant amount of poultry protein.
I recently bought some AMD stock because I do not think that the PC market is faltering and that I believe AMD is winning the game. As chips get faster and faster, computers get obsolete quicker. That 300 Mhz CPU you have is going to seem pretty slow when AMD introduces their 1.5 Gig in Q1 of 2001. It is pretty neat that AMD’s 1 Gig is under $400. Even with all of Intel’s problems, I think Intel’s stock now represents a bargain also. Of course, if this continues for Intel in the next few years, you might find it more economical to heat your home with Intel stock certificates. Craig Barrett has got to go if Intel is going to get back on track. I wouldn’t buy their stock on principle because I am somewhat aware of their pattern of abuse. If AMD was pulling the fiascoes that Intel has been into, I would be just as tough on them. The likelihood that AMD, if they bested Intel, would be playing just as dirty pool as Intel is quite high. Many countries & companies begin a cycle of competence, which is followed by dominance. This dominance gives way to laxness and almost unerringly abuse. It is the abuse that triggers the decline. Ben Franklin noted how the British Crown was uncaring and abusive. We hate British movies because 81.3% of the time, they are set in England’s glory days. Anyhoo, I can’t see myself respecting a man in a powdered wig. Intel is well into the abuse cycle and they must correct their behavior or suffer impending decline. This pattern will stalk every company, country, & individual that does not exercise vigilance. It is important to recognize the shift in momentum that marks the decline of one and the rise of their nemesis.
FYI: I’m up by 5x in 1.5 years in the market. I tend to invest if I believe in the company’ product and/or vision. Right now I’m heavy into micro-fuel cells. These are methanol-powered devices that might one day replace AA, AAA and the battery in your cell phone or laptop. I like MDTL, MHTX, DCH, & EGYV. Of them all, I like MDTL the best. They are supposed to release AA (non-refillable) batteries that will be 2.2 times stronger than the best alkaline in Q1 of 2001. The letter from the chairman is particularly inspiring. ( the-island.co.il ) . I would surmise that these companies would either go out of business or be worth 5-50x in 5 years. The vision I get is that my car will run off of ethanol in 20 years. In this sense, I’m with Ralph Nader. I’m really surprised he is not touting this technology. If not for fuel cells, I’d be 100% into AMD right at this moment. I really didn’t want to have to sell some fuel cell stock, but since the investors are going to give AMD stock away, I just had to get me a few shares. J
Please email me your comments to phil@smi.com
Written Oct 17, 2k. |
