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: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (85556)	1/6/2000 3:14:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573213

Kevin - <One of the things they teach you in Industrial Organization 101 is that successful monopolies make sure they maintain excess capacity. It's a significant barrier to entry. Guess Intel was too stupid to figure that out--giving AMD a window with Athlon.> Minus the "successful monopoly" comment, I agree with you in the sense that it sure looks like there is a shortfall in capacity. For the .18 program I understand the current constraints. What I do not understand is all the emphasis on shortfalls of .25 PIII's and Celerons screwing up GTW's quarter. Even if one subscribes to Charles' "upselling" theory, it does not fully explain this situation, IMHO. PB

To: Kevin K. Spurway who wrote (85556)	1/6/2000 3:46:00 PM
From: greg nus	Respond to of 1573213

Kevin, I remember a past address Grove gave saying Intel errored by underestimating demand, I beleive it was during his Clicking on all Cylinders talk. Kevin eighter demand has uptstripped supply or a better explaination is Intel calculated capacity output could be increased without additional fab capacity through design changes from smaller dye sizes resulting in more chips per wafer and process implementations such as .18u. Intels miscalculation came about in the delay in implememting. The mistake therefore comes about from exicution, rather than capital spending.