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 (85850)	1/7/2000 4:55:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572877

How nice it must be to define someone else's words to meet your agenda. "Failed to meet their commitments" is the usual term to describe a failure to meet their commitments. We all know Gateway wanted more than Intel could deliver. That's not news. Intel has publicly stated they would meet their commitments and Gateway has not disputed that claim. EP,that's okay....you keep checking press releases for those words but I have better things to do with my time. I have said this before, Intel in 1999 is not unlike Rome at the time of Nero; even empire's can fall when there is no one taking care of business. ted BTW what I think is the real truth about this whole fiasco....Intel promised Dell and GTW the works...all the chips they needed at good prices in order to keep business from AMD ...and it backfired on them as these sort of business schemes often do.

To: Elmer who wrote (85850)	1/8/2000 12:09:00 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 1572877

Re: "Failed to meet their commitments" It wasn't too many months ago that Gateway was condemning AMD as an unreliable supplier - quite publicly - and said they'd never buy from AMD again. Now Gateway is telling the world that Intel is unreliable, and that they'll never be dependant on one supplier again. Gateway seems to be just a wee bit more willing to point fingers than most of the other boxmakers. But, even given that, my guess is that the Q4 volume of deliveries of Coppermines and 820 based motherboards wasn't up to volumes ordered in the preceding months. (anybody else think that could have happened?) And that the PIII 400 to 500 wafer starts got a lot of real careful testing, and many of them were upbinned, leaving a shortfall of Gateway's "sweet spot" parts. I can't Gateway imagine would have been this vituperative if they hadn't felt misled by Intel about the volume of parts that would be available to them in Q4. Dan