Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (64787)	7/11/1999 5:14:00 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579697

Fred, Your windy rants with zero content make me wish you just went away. Oh well, you probably will not :-( Kap.

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (64787)	7/11/1999 6:43:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579697

Re: "most people here haven't got the faintest idea of what constitutes predatory pricing. The only predatory pricing going on, if any, is by AMD in a desperate attempt to gain market share." I agree with you that Intel probably isn't engaged in predatory pricing. I also agree that most people don't know what predatory pricing is. Including, apparently, you. Kevin

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (64787)	7/12/1999 1:50:00 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579697

Fred Thank your for taking the time to respond. << I haven't missed a thing. I have been reading this crap for a long, long time...on both threads. Problem is that most people here haven't got the faintest idea of what constitutes predatory pricing. The only predatory pricing going on, if any, is by AMD in a desperate attempt to gain market share. The results of their cut throat pricing strategy could been seen a mile away. You don't pick a fight with an 800 lb gorilla and expect to win, unless you are as dumb as Jerry Sanders. Believe it or not, this was not the only strategy available to AMD. It was the strategy that Jerry chose.>> You will have to define your understanding of "predatory". From what I have learned about the term, in a fight for survival, it would be inappropriate to call the hare, the predator, and the wolf, the victim. Unfortunately (for AMD) in its current relationship with intc, it would be very hard to categorize AMD as the wolf and intc as the hare, in my opinion. <<Speaking of which, it has been said that much of what passes as postings by intc longs (with the singular exception of Amy J) tends to be abrasive, abusive and denigrating. You come to this thread, the AMD thread by the way, degrading the company's management, its products and its financial history...> Sorry if the truth hurts, but some people are interested in these things. I know these observations aren't popular with most of the Sanders apologists here, but you would be surprised at the private E-mail I have received from a couple former AMD fans (a couple years ago) thanking me for helping them see the CPU industry in terms of reality instead of wishful thinking. I think many people here need to grow up and stop blaming Intel for AMD's problems. Most, if not all, of AMD's wow's are of their own making. I'll tell you "what psses the sht of ME!" is how so many people under so many circumstances (not just investing) refuse to put the blame on themselves but look to others for excuses. Downright disgusting, but understandable....a common trait among losers.>> I am afraid that your last word, "losers", unfortunately colors the approach so often used when intc longs are "educating" those who post on this thread. This approach can only be categorized as bombastic, autocratic and demeaning. The intc longs' postings also assume that their investment parameters and priorities are the correct ones and that they should be adopted immediately, without question, by the AMD posters. As for people refusing "to put the blame on themselves", respectfully I think you have this issue confused with something going on in some other part of your life. So that my position is clear to you, I believe that AMD has made many missteps in the past and all the terrible complaints voiced about Sanders and AMD I suspect to some degree are true. In addition it has very bad economic fundamentals. However, it also can be said, that in spite of overwhelming odds, AMD has designed and brought to production a chip that is at least as competitive if not superior to anything that intc has in production; remarkably, this, from a company that brings new meaning to the word underdog and that probably should have bled to death a long time ago. Now it appears that most intc longs would have preferred that AMD had gone quietly into the night along time ago but from where I come from, we honor that kind of determination and courage. For that reason I have suspended my investment parameters to invest in AMD (while still hoping to make a profit). From what I understand that is my right to do so; therefore do not be surprised that when attacked, I defend that position. <<And then you have the unmitigated gall to be surprised that your behavior does not make us happy.> When did I say that. First, I could care less if my behavior upsets you. Second, I said that the AMD followers get mad at Intel for dropping prices to stay somewhat competitive with AMD. Scumbria and others have often suggested that Intel should just have just let AMD take away some market share by allowing the large price gaps to exist. How absurd can you get??>> I have heard it speculated on this thread that it would be better for both intc and AMD financially if they refrained from continuing a price war in the low end. If this approach were implemented, then it is true that it would, in effect, guarantee market share for AMD. But at the time I followed this discussion/speculation, it was recognized simultaneously that if intc and AMD preceded in this fashion that it would be considered an antitrust violation. In other words it is my understanding that it was never considered a realistic alternative. As for Scumbria, I do not remember him making such a statement but I will defer to him as to whether he wishes to comment. ted