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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95270)	1/6/2000 8:54:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul: You are correct. INTC said they would fill all the anticipated orders but would be hard pressed to fill any additional orders in the qrtr.. So if GTW tried to low ball their orders it is only natural to assume that they are to blame given the demand supply situation that existed at the time. Further, I don't think INTC would bend over backwards to help GTW catch up as they returned to INTC after being disappointed by the unreliable AMD. Absent AMD's normal price cutting it would seem to me that INTC's unit prices actually went up while maxing out their production resulting in a great qrtr. CPQ tried to blame other forces outside of their company when they screwed up and soon heads began to fall. Watch for similar changes at Gateway. The next excuse now that Y2k is gone will be the devil made us do it. Looking forward:This article calls for a booming year for the chips newsalert.com JFD

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95270)	1/6/2000 9:08:00 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, re: "So, is Intel to blame in this case ? Absolutely not." I agree, and was making the same point, in a less direct way. When the chips are down, you need to make a commitment (pun intended). GTW probably didn't have enough confidence to do that. John

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95270)	1/6/2000 10:00:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, great post regarding Gateway. I think you hit the nail on the head with a 20 lb. sledgehammer. Tenchusatsu

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95270)	1/6/2000 10:50:00 PM
From: exhon2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul: re >>So - did Gateway blame their procurement personnel for NOT ORDERING SUFFICIENT CPUS in time from Intel?<< Behind closed doors, they probably did. However, since Gateway management ultimately bears the responsibility for the actions of their subordinates and being the typical Corporate Chameleons they apparently are, they had no choice but to blame an extraneous source and Intel was the obvious choice. Regards, Greg

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95270)	1/6/2000 11:59:00 PM
From: Harry Landsiedel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul Engel. Re: "So - did Gateway blame their procurement personnel for NOT ORDERING SUFFICIENT CPUS in time from Intel? Why not ? Good question. Maybe they hired Eckard (the dog ate my homework) Pfeiffer in their Investor Relations department, and we just missed the PR release. I'll bet Gateway stock will take a nice pop when that news leaks out.:) HL

To: Paul Engel who wrote (95270)	1/7/2000 1:09:00 AM
From: Diamond Jim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, you are hired to do Intel PR. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Intel came out and said exactly that when Mr Todd was pointing the finger at Intel? What you said below is just perfect. --------- Why does everyone assume that Intel "fouled up" with Gateway? If Gateway, for example, forecasted for, say, 75,000 450 MHz Pentium IIs/week in August, and Intel scheduled their factories for that number (remember, Intel's process time is about 9 to 11 weeks), and in early November Gateway UPS THEIR request to 125,000 450 MHz Pentium IIs/week , what can Intel do? Especially, when Dell, Compaq, HP, Sony, etc were most likely ALSO asking for increased delivery allotments ? So, is Intel to blame in this case ? Absolutely not.