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 (85821)	1/7/2000 3:41:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572706

EP & Ted, Clearly you are both right and wrong on this. BOTH INTC/GTW screwed up to get Gateway to this point. All the direct guys Dell/GTW have been spoiled by perfect execution by their CPU/MB suppliers etc. In fact their Biz plan dictates NOT ordering to expectations months in advance but to order with VERY short lead times. This allows them to save inventory cost and to capture margin by the inevitable price declines in components. Unfortunately this zero-inventory model is less than perfect in times of product allocations/disruptions. Intel clearly stumbled in Q4 - we don't know how badly yet -maybe it was simply overwhelmed by demand and - best case - or had some yield disruption - worst case. But clearly Gateway shares the responsibility. They are the dumbsh*ts who went into sole source with inadequate orders etc into Q4. And I am sure Dell got priority over Gateway when push came to shove and Gateway is pissed. regards, Kash

To: Elmer who wrote (85821)	1/7/2000 3:52:00 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572706

So do I take this as an admission that you can't find any statement from GTW that Intel failed to meet it's commitments? Of course I can find evidence that Intel failed to meet its commitments to GTW. Here's what I found: dailynews.yahoo.com "Supply of key processors was seriously constrained, spotty and unreliable",.......said John Todd (of GTW)........Terms like unreliable are used to described a failure in the course of a normal business transaction like a committed supply of chips. A product supply can not be considered unreliable when its above the amount actually ordered. That would not make linguistic or any other kind of sense. BTW these verbal gymnastics/sleights of hand that you actively engage in do not result in an increase in the supply of cumine or increased revenues for Intel. Thought you might like to know that. ted