Albert,
re: you have to keep in mind that unlike people like yourself I do not consider neither intel nor amd sinister.
I don't think AMD is sinister, I think they mismanaged.
re: Intel needs to target 50%+ gm or barrett and grove both would be served roasted on the next shareholder meeting. Hence under the condition of the price war minimum required gm limits companies ability. To overcome that some companies (like intel) employ creative accounting but the danger of that is that regulations may change and/or shareholders would demand better reporting procedure.
Are you nuts? You are not making any sense.
re: it is? you mean that there is such a thing as a standard economic employee productivity concept? Boy I gotta start reading more economics <gggg>
Output per worker (in the form of revenue), as reported monthly by the labor department. Too bad AMD is producing less revenue per employee, and negative profits per employee. As an owner, you are paying these guys to lose money. What's up with that Albert?
re: no, no, no, do not confuse those. Intel ignored amd's ability to create a product and that caused some problems including shortages when intel was catching up. You are mixing the cause and effect.
You mean effect and cause, right?
re: right opposite, I think that amd is heading the same route with their jv deal.
Trading off control of manufacturing process, and a portion of their (currently negative) net margin, to save capacity investments. It's short term thinking, the reason AMD is AMD and Intel is Intel. Who controls the future of AMD?
John |
