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: Goutam who wrote (85432)	1/6/2000 1:41:00 AM
From: Process Boy	Respond to of 1572406

Goutama - <AMD failing to meet it's commitments to GTW put them in bad terms with GTW for a while. But, this was not the main reason why GTW dropped AMD. By the time GTW dropped AMD there were no supply problems from AMD. IMHO, it's the $20M ransom (which was one of the Intel's acts to do with it's scrambling in reaction to Athlon and GTW+Athlon) from INTC made GTW to drop AMD.> I find it hard to believe that GTW would put $20M over supply concerns. PB

To: Goutam who wrote (85432)	1/6/2000 4:01:00 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572406

Isn't it clear from what Gateway said today that they were contractually prohibited from buying processors from AMD? Thats what the word "exclusive" means, isn't it? And don't we know that Gateway had made a hard decision to use the Athlon prior to Christmas, but then suddenly changed their mind? (email evidence, website tech support info and MaximumPC Mag "news" article) They would not have made a solid decision to use the Athlon if Athlons or motherboards were not available. So that can't be an excuse for changing their minds. AMD could easily have temporarily reduced supplies in the distributor/DIY channel for 500-550 MHz Athlons, and motherboards are plentiful. It must have been: 1. $20M cash from Intel] 2. Threat from Intel to reduce supplies according to the "excluse source" contract. Probably both of the above. I think Intel is on very shaky legal ground. Most states have "restraint of trade" laws that prohibit one company from threatening another based on business dealings with a third party (AMD), especially if a company makes promises that later turn out to be false. Petz