I agree that Cyrix dropping out will be good for AMD, and that may be good for the industry as a whole. But I am also keenly aware that Intel prices its products in such a way as to prevent AMD and Cyrix from making a profit if possible, so the loss of Cyrix does not imply that AMD will be suddenly profitable, though it should help some.
Keep in mind that to the extent that CPU makers selling products below cost has reduced the prices of computers, it has benefited the makers of other components, though again, that doesn't assure profitability. The disk drive makers may be hurting, but they'd be hurting a lot more if there weren't unit volume increases from low cost computers. Do some buyers opt for low cost computers that would otherwise pay full price? Sure. Do some people buy low cost computers who otherwise wouldn't buy computers at all? Absolutely.
I agree with your comment about buggy software, but when you refer to our "amazing tolerance for money-losing stocks" I am a bit confused. Tech stocks that lose money are generally treated harshly, though trading them can be profitable if you are adept enough to catch the subtle changes in direction. Therefore I presume you refer to internut stocks which rise higher and faster the more money they lose. Stocks like BYND which are richly valued despite projected losses in 1999, 2000, and 2001, with no profits in sight. Yes, this type of tolerance of losses is amazing to me
Carl |
