Grinch Dork, Re: "Your numbers look good in your theory. In reality, in 3Q01 IAG had incurred $4B expenses (5,393-1,328). Assuming generously about 30M units sold, it gives $135 cost per chip sold."
You want to explain to me how you were able to ascertain that 100% of Intel's expenses in their Q3 balance sheet were due to manufacturing costs?
I only ask because my previous post was only meant to illustrate how much margin can be found on manufacturing costs by themselves. I guess you never bothered to read my last sentence: "It's too bad that billions need to go into research, design, manufacturing, and marketing in order to get these numbers." You also never bothered to follow later conversations, which would have also clued you in.
But this is yet again par for the course with you. Being your old and Grinchy self, you decided to nit-pick at my analysis, and see if you could somehow prove me wrong with something. Instead, you only managed to restate the blatantly obvious. Good detective work, Sherlock.
wbmw
P.S. Regarding Celeron profitability - that's easy. Celeron is profitable for Intel because there is nearly zero design effort going into it. A Celeron is only a Pentium III with half the cache and a slower front side bus. In 2002, it will be a Willamette or Northwood processor with half the cache and a slower front side bus. Therefore, Celeron is mostly all gains for Intel because of low manufacturing costs. |
