Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

AMD 255.96

+2.3%

Nov 5 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (219806)	12/9/2006 12:12:42 PM
From: economaniack	Read Replies (2) of 275872

Tench, For a and b don't get me started on MSFT. If you think I get exercised about Intel extorting a few extra bucks and stomping on AMD periodically, you can imagine what I think of a company that foists Windows on a poor helpless world. Why exactly do I have to choose between leaving my computer vulnerable to attacks and letting MSFT install unstable patches every couple days again? A is making my point, about the difference between hardware and software. Software is much more a "natural monopoly". c) What's stopping Intel from just "giving" away the chipset and graphics as a bundle with the CPU? (Not saying that Intel would do it, but they could and so could AMD.) As long as Intel retains 70-80% market share in CPUs they would violate the Clayton act if they adopt bundle pricing that they can't justify economically - ie they can offer bundles lower than standalone pricing only if they can show some savings (to them) from the combined product. Beyond that, as long as AMD remains competitive, consumers (especially the big OEMs) are gonna consider total system cost in choosing components, so it really shouldn't make any difference (for AMD) how Intel allocates the price between components which are offered together. If they offered the graphics component alone at less than manufacturing cost, and had a competitive product, they could probably buy a bunch of market share, but at a serious cost. So far Intel has not shown much interest in straightforward predatory pricing, prefering to leverage their market share to make marginal prices much lower than average prices. "Like you said, the basic architecture of the PC itself has become a battleground. Why wouldn't the pricing models itself change just as fast as the PC architecture?" I am awfully skeptical about (lawful) pricing schemes really impacting market structure in a way that isn't explained by the products themselves. Intel can certainly make it hard to mix and match processors and CPUs without resorting to legally questionable tieing schemes and achieve pretty much the same effect. The question is do they want to go it alone or have support from 3rd party chipset and graphics providers? They often seem uncertain of their answer to that question sometimes relying on partners and then seemingly trying to put them out of business and back again in just a few months. One reason I think a lot of the industry wants AMD to succeed in establishing a duopoly. e

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next