Ibexx - Thanks for the Barron's post
Regarding Intel & Sub $1000 PCs - I think the analyst community has forgotten how to add.
Cyrix claims to have shipped in Q3 400,000 MediaGX CPUs and dumped 600,000 6x86 CPUs on the market at fire sale prices - 1,000,000 total - plus 300,000 6x86MX ,assumed to go to "higher end" PCs.
AMD in Q3 sold 1,000,000 K6's and maybe a few hundred thousand K5's. Let's assume 500,000 of these went into sub $1,000 PCs, the rest into "normal" PCs.
That makes Cyrix and AMD's "low cost" CPUs total about 1,500,000 which would end up in sub $1,000 PCs.
Intel shipped in Q3 approximately 21,000,000 CPUs. The total x86 CPU market would be 21,000,000 + 1,300,000(Cyrix)+ 1,200,000 (AMD) = 23,500,000.
Assuming each of these resulted in a computer sold, the Cyrix/AMD percentage of sub $1000 PC/CPUs would be [1,000,000 (Cyrix)+ + 500,000 (AMD)]/23,500,000 = 6.3%
Now, assuminmg Intel had ZERO percentage in this market, the sub $1,000 PC market would be 6.3%.
If the sub $1,000 PC market is 10% of ALL PCs, then Intel must have 3.7% of the market. Similarly, if the sub $1,000 PC market is 20% of the total market, Intel must have 13.7% of the total CPUs going into this market segment.
My point is, the analysts "can't have it both ways". Either the sub $1,000 PC market is very small or, if it is as large as they think (20%), Intel MUST have the dominant share of this market.
I don't think Intel makes a big deal to emphasize this - but it is clear, their CPUs must be going into the MAJORITY of PCs in the sub $1,000 category.
Paul |
