Doug, Re: "I happen to agree with Pravin in his estimation of Intel as a consumer. I think intel does some horrible things for consumers, and if it weren't for AMD, I think they'd still be selling chips for $800 a pop, they wouldn't have pushed the envelope nearly as far as they have, and I'd be paying $300 bucks for rambus memory."
If Intel could get away with selling chips that high, I'm pretty sure they would. But since there is a certain consumer tolerance level when it comes to buying a computer, Intel has to compromise in order to maximize the total available market. It's something so elementary that I'm certain Intel execs know how to do it - just balance pricing with volumes, and try to get the best match. Intel would be doing this with or without AMD, but since competition does moves price / performance even more favorably, you can say that AMD took a part in getting prices to where they are today. However, I think you are mistaken if you think that processor prices would still be at $800 without AMD. More likely, they would be higher than they are now, but not by that much higher. Also, don't kid yourself with any fantasies that AMD management would handle the situation any differently. If Sanders were in charge, and had the power that Intel execs have, you can be sure he wouldn't show any favoritism to the consumer - only to himself, and the investors, employees, and others that keep his stock options high. It's a corporate world, and Intel isn't any more evil than the next company - they are just more successful, which grants them the ability to shape the market with a little more force than others. This is not an evil quality, just a capitalistic one.
wbmw |
