Wanda, "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." "
It's funny, how I did not read your catchy sentence,
if I even cut it and pasted it into my message header?
I guess it is you who are not paying attention.
I said in response to your phrase:
"It is not bad nor good, it is the way it is,
one determines another."
"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."
And you apparently cannot see the "blatantly" obvious.
I have to spell every thing again for you:
When Celeron/Coppermine were developed, were there
R&D expenses or not? Who suppose to pay off these
investments? The product line that was developed
under those R&D. If current Celerons are barely
self-sustainable, who is providing return on
those investments? Right, other product lines,
with higher ASP. Therefore, it is still a form
of subsidies. Q.E.D.
"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. ..Celeron is mostly all gains for Intel because of low manufacturing costs."
Thank you for confirming that, wrt silicon, Celerons
are identical to P-IIIs. You forgot to add that
the Celeron packaging is more expensive than for
naked P-III. I re-state again: if a product that cannot
recuperate the R&D investments, it cannot be called
"profitable".
- Ali
P.S. Being young does not necessarily imply of being
sharp of bright. You are a living proof. |
