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: Elmer who wrote (66225)	7/20/1999 5:19:00 PM
From: Kevin K. Spurway	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1585592

Re: "Witness the fact that AMD has never made an overall profit on their own, non-Intel design. Never. That's not the sign of a vital thriving company." AMD is currently 0 for 2. Even in baseball you get three strikes before you're out. AMD has, from time to time, had many very profitable non-x86 businesses using their own non-Intel design. Re: "That's a parasite." When you become biased to the point of zealotry there's probably no longer any point in reasoning with you. AMD has never done anything right, and they never will, and IT'S ALL JUST JERRY SANDERS FAULT! WHINE WHINE WHINE! Kevin

To: Elmer who wrote (66225)	7/20/1999 6:22:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585592

Elmer, <second source... but every business relationship can eventually outlive it's usefulness.> You are operating on the wrong premises. It is amazing how people can't comprehend the concept. Or rather blatantly don't want to, for own convenience. The second sourcing is not about business "usefulness" between first and second source. It was a industry-wide business requirement, military in particular. You say: "[Intel] had their own internal second sources and there was no need to fear an interruption in supply." Do you really understand what you are up to? The whole idea behind the "second source" was exactly to SEPARATE SOURCES, not to rely on "internal second source" that may disappear at Intel will as soon as they see better business opportunity FOR THEM. FOR THEM ONLY!. How about established businesses of their customers? Preferences of their customers? No need to fear an interruption in supply? Joking? How about "an interruption" in 430HX, TX chipsets? At a time every 430 order was loaded with 50%-75% of 440FX by Intel. That is exactly the point: being "solo source", Intel is able to stuck a foot into every mouth and turn an established business down by cutting supply. With no second source. They made other people life miserable by forcing them to redesign CONTINUOUSLY their systems because Intel controls the supply totally. You may try to spin this as Intel "innovation", but I would call it as "industry-wide beta testing and debug". Cheap for Intel, but at big expense for systems and board makers. And Intel yet charged a lot for this "innovation"! What a scoffing! <Witness the fact that AMD has never made an overall profit on their own, non-Intel design> What "fact"? Do you really think that AMD is still living off those "$100M" they made on 486 processors? C'mon Elmer, your rant about AMD as a deadweight and industry parasite is a delirium and a shameless Intel propaganda.